On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 11:16:46 -0500
Neil Horman wrote:
> This really seems like a false savings to me. If an application intends to
> use
> multiple processes (which by all rights it seems like the use case that the
> dpdk
> is mostly designed for) then you need locking one way or another, and
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 09:47:45AM -0500, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 08:18:36AM +, Wodkowski, PawelX wrote:
> > > Though, that said, doesn't it seem to anyone else like serialization of
> > > enqueue
> > > to a port should be the responsibility of the library, not the
> > >
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 02:54:56PM +, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 09:47:45AM -0500, Neil Horman wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 08:18:36AM +, Wodkowski, PawelX wrote:
> > > > Though, that said, doesn't it seem to anyone else like serialization of
> > > > enqueue
>
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 08:18:36AM +, Wodkowski, PawelX wrote:
> > Though, that said, doesn't it seem to anyone else like serialization of
> > enqueue
> > to a port should be the responsibility of the library, not the application?
> >
> > Neil
>
> From my knowledge it is an application
> Though, that said, doesn't it seem to anyone else like serialization of
> enqueue
> to a port should be the responsibility of the library, not the application?
>
> Neil
>From my knowledge it is an application responsibility to serialize access to
queue on particular port.
Pawel
5 matches
Mail list logo
