> -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 9:00 PM > To: Pattan, Reshma <reshma.pattan at intel.com> > Cc: dev at dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v9 1/8] ethdev: use locks to protect Rx/Tx > callback lists > > 2016-06-14 10:38, Reshma Pattan: > > Added spinlocks around add/remove logic of Rx and Tx callbacks to > > avoid corruption of callback lists in multithreaded context. > > > > Signed-off-by: Reshma Pattan <reshma.pattan at intel.com> > > Why cb->next is not locked in burst functions? It is safe to do "read access" here and doesn't require any locking as rx/tx burst is initiated by only local user(control plane) thread.
> Just protecting add/remove but not its usage seems useless. Here locks were required around add/remove to protect "write access" because write to callback list is now done from 2 threads i.e. one from local user thread(control plane) and another from pdump control thread(initiated by remote pdump request). Thanks, Reshma