Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/1] timer: add limitation note for sync stop and reset

2020-10-08 Thread David Marchand
On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 3:58 PM Carrillo, Erik G wrote: > > Since we go with documenting a limitation, should we mark the original > > patches [1] and [2] as rejected instead of deferred? > > > > 1: https://patches.dpdk.org/patch/75156/ > > 2: https://patches.dpdk.org/patch/73683/ > > > > > Thanks,

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/1] timer: add limitation note for sync stop and reset

2020-10-08 Thread Carrillo, Erik G
> -Original Message- > From: David Marchand > Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2020 5:28 AM > To: Carrillo, Erik G > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; sta...@dpdk.org; nd ; Honnappa > Nagarahalli ; Sarosh Arif > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/1] timer: add limitation note f

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/1] timer: add limitation note for sync stop and reset

2020-10-08 Thread David Marchand
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 3:23 AM Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote: > > If a timer's callback function calls rte_timer_reset_sync() or > > rte_timer_stop_sync() on another timer that is in the RUNNING state and > > owned by the current lcore, the *_sync() calls will loop indefinitely. > > > > Relatedly, i

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/1] timer: add limitation note for sync stop and reset

2020-09-09 Thread Honnappa Nagarahalli
> > If a timer's callback function calls rte_timer_reset_sync() or > rte_timer_stop_sync() on another timer that is in the RUNNING state and > owned by the current lcore, the *_sync() calls will loop indefinitely. > > Relatedly, if a timer's callback function calls *_sync() on another timer >