From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A6471B1C5 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 12:40:29 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga004.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.48]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 Jan 2018 03:40:29 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,339,1511856000"; d="scan'208";a="19827067" Received: from rhorton-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [163.33.230.11]) ([163.33.230.11]) by fmsmga004.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 10 Jan 2018 03:40:27 -0800 From: Remy Horton To: Ferruh Yigit , dev@dpdk.org References: <20180108143720.7994-1-remy.horton@intel.com> <20180108143720.7994-2-remy.horton@intel.com> Cc: John McNamara , Wenzhuo Lu , Jingjing Wu , Declan Doherty , Mohammad Abdul Awal , Luca Boccassi Organization: Intel Shannon Limited Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 11:40:27 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/5] lib: add Port Representor library X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 11:40:30 -0000 On 09/01/2018 22:06, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > On 1/8/2018 2:37 PM, Remy Horton wrote: [..] >> + TAILQ_FOREACH(broker, &broker_list, next) { > Is there any type of synchronization required to protect the list? Might be required if an app decides to call the functions from multiple lcores, but in that circumstance locking probably should be the responsibility of the app. > There was discussion about having new APIs as EXPERIMENTAL for a release, is it > agreed on. John, Luca do you remember? I also remember some discussion along those lines, but not sure what the final outcome was. >> + void *private_data; >> + /**< broker private data */ > > Is this private_data used? The PMD-specific port representor support functions use it.