Re: RTE lock

2024-03-08 Thread Mattias Rönnblom
On 2024-03-07 21:27, Stephen Hemminger wrote: On Thu, 7 Mar 2024 20:50:26 +0100 Mattias Rönnblom wrote: On 2024-03-05 22:02, Tyler Retzlaff wrote: On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 09:18:20PM +0100, Mattias Rönnblom wrote: Shouldn't we have a DPDK-native mutex API, rather than using direct POSIX mutex

Re: RTE lock

2024-03-07 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Thu, 7 Mar 2024 20:50:26 +0100 Mattias Rönnblom wrote: > On 2024-03-05 22:02, Tyler Retzlaff wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 09:18:20PM +0100, Mattias Rönnblom wrote: > >> Shouldn't we have a DPDK-native mutex API, rather than using direct > >> POSIX mutex lock calls? > > > > David rai

Re: RTE lock

2024-03-07 Thread Mattias Rönnblom
On 2024-03-05 22:02, Tyler Retzlaff wrote: On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 09:18:20PM +0100, Mattias Rönnblom wrote: Shouldn't we have a DPDK-native mutex API, rather than using direct POSIX mutex lock calls? David raised this a while back and the consensus is yes. I admit it's been on my radar for a

RE: RTE lock

2024-03-06 Thread Morten Brørup
> From: Mattias Rönnblom [mailto:hof...@lysator.liu.se] > Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2024 21.18 > > Shouldn't we have a DPDK-native mutex API, rather than using direct > POSIX mutex lock calls? > > There are two reasons for this, as I see it > 1) more cleanly support non-POSIX operating system (i.e.,

Re: RTE lock

2024-03-05 Thread Tyler Retzlaff
On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 09:18:20PM +0100, Mattias Rönnblom wrote: > Shouldn't we have a DPDK-native mutex API, rather than using direct > POSIX mutex lock calls? David raised this a while back and the consensus is yes. I admit it's been on my radar for a long time for the obvious reasons you list