Re: [PATCH] eal: introduce atomics abstraction

[Ben Magistro <koncept1@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1368 bytes --]

On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 10:55 AM Bruce Richardson <
bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 10:28:40AM -0500, Ben Magistro wrote:
> >    There is a thread discussing a change to the standard [1] but I have
> >    not seen anything explicit yet about moving to C11.  I am personally
> in
> >    favor of making the jump to C11 now as part of the 23.x branch and
> >    provided my thoughts in the linked thread (what other projects using
> >    DPDK have as minimum compiler requirements, CentOS 7 EOL dates).
> >    Is the long term plan to backport this change set to the existing LTS
> >    release or is this meant to be something introduced for use in 23.x
> and
> >    going forward?  I think I was (probably naively) assuming this would
> be
> >    a new feature in the 23.x going forward only.
> >    [1] [1]http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2023-February/262188.html
> >
> We don't bump requirements for older LTS releases, so any change to minimum
> required versions would only be for the 23.x series releases


I meant the atomics change set, I should have been clearer in that
question, my apologies.  If the atomic work is planned to be backported,
the question of if/when the C11 standard would be adopted seems less
relevant since it would need to be supported for DPDK versions that do not
have the C11 standard requirement too.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1903 bytes --]