On Wed, 9 May 2018 11:43:33 +0200
Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote:
>
> +struct rte_eth_dev *
> +rte_eth_dev_allocated(const char *name)
> +{
> + struct rte_eth_dev *ethdev;
> +
> + rte_eth_dev_shared_data_prepare();
> +
> + rte_spinlock_lock(&rte_eth_dev_shared_data->ownership_lock);
> +
> + ethdev = rte_eth_dev_allocated_lock_free(name);
> +
> + rte_spinlock_unlock(&rte_eth_dev_shared_data->ownership_lock);
> +
> + return ethdev;
> +}
> +
Not sure about this. The code it self is correct, but it creates
a racy semantic.
If caller doesn't already hold a lock then there is no guarantee that
the device returned won't be destroyed by some other thread or that
the name was just allocated by some other process.
