On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 09:09:04AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2016-03-18 16:00, Yuanhan Liu:
> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 04:29:32PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > 2016-02-24 14:47, Ilya Maximets:
> > > > Implementation of rte_vhost_enqueue_burst() based on lockless
> > > > ring-buffer
> > > > algorithm and contains almost all to be thread-safe, but it's not.
> > > >
> > > > This set adds required changes.
> > > >
> > > > First patch in set is a standalone patch that fixes many times discussed
> > > > issue with barriers on different architectures.
> > > >
> > > > Second and third adds fixes to make rte_vhost_enqueue_burst thread safe.
> > >
> > > My understanding is that we do not want to pollute Rx/Tx with locks.
> > >
> > > Huawei, Yuanhan, Bruce, do you confirm?
> >
> > Huawei would like to do that, and I'm behind that. Let's do it.
>
> I'm not sure to understand. What do you want to do exactly?
I was thinking we are on the same page :(
"do not want to pollute Rx/Tx with locks" == "remove lockless Rx/Tx, the
proposal from Huawei", right?
In another way, I'm behind the following patch from Huawei:
http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/9740/
--yliu
