On Mon, 3 May 2021, 16:28 Olivier Matz, <olivier.m...@6wind.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 04:21:25PM +0200, David Marchand wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 10:29 AM Stanislaw Kardach <k...@semihalf.com> > wrote: > > > > > > The lock-free stack implementation (RTE_STACK_F_LF) is supported only > on a > > > subset of platforms, namely x86_64 and arm64. Platforms supporting > 128b atomics > > > have to opt-in to a generic or C11 implementations. All other > platforms use a > > > stubbed implementation for push/pop operations which are basically > NOPs. > > > However rte_stack_create() will not fail and application can proceed > assuming > > > it has a working lock-free stack. > > > > > > This means that among other things the stack_lf fast and perf tests > will fail > > > as if implementation is wrong (which one can argue is). Therefore this > patchset > > > tries to give user a way to check whether a lock_free is supported or > not both > > > at compile time (build flag) and at runtime (ENOTSUP errno in > rte_stack_create). > > > > > > I have added cc to sta...@dpdk.org because check-git-log.sh suggested > it. I'm > > > not sure if adding a binary compatible change to API is worth > sta...@dpdk.org. > > > > > > Cc: sta...@dpdk.org > > > > The issue was hit while porting to a new architecture. > > The feature is broken in existing stable releases and it won't get > > fixed by this change. > > > > I'd rather not backport it. > > > > Opinions? > > Agreed. > Agreed. >