> -----Original Message----- > From: Ola Liljedahl [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 10:19 AM > To: [email protected]; Eads, Gage <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; nd <[email protected]>; Ananyev, Konstantin > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Richardson, > Bruce <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected]; Honnappa Nagarahalli > <[email protected]>; Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China) > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] doc: announce ring API change > > On Fri, 2019-05-10 at 07:58 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > On Fri, 10 May 2019 14:53:56 +0000 > > "Eads, Gage" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 01/02/2019 15:36, Gage Eads: > > In order to support the non-blocking ring[1], an API change > > (additional argument to rte_ring_get_memsize()) is required in > > librte_ring. This commit updates the deprecation notice to pave the > > way for its inclusion in 19.08. > > > > [1] http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-January/124162.html > > > > Signed-off-by: Gage Eads <[email protected]> > > > > There is still no agreement on this change? > > > > > > Still none. I was hoping this discussion ( > > http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-April/129229.html) would lead > > to some clear direction, but at this point the effort is stalled. > > > > The fundamental tradeoff is between non-blocking rings and ABI breakage. > > It is also possible to do "non-blocking" (but not lock-free) rings with the > original element size (a pointer per ring slot) as implemented here: > https://github.com/ARM- > software/progress64/blob/master/src/p64_ringbuf.c > Some extra (head&tail) metadata is required but I think there is space for > that in the rte_ring structure. > > > Why not have a new ring type for non-blocking rings since non-blocking > > rings are not necessary for all use cases. > > I proposed a new library ("rte_lfring") with lock-free rings here: > https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-January/124242.html > The lock-free design should be the same as in Gage's patch. > > rte_lfring could of course be part of the rte_ring library. >
Just read through the API/ABI stability discussion (https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-April/128969.html). I'll drop my patchset and work on supporting this lfring API instead. Thanks, Gage > > -- > Ola Liljedahl, Networking System Architect, Arm Phone +46706866373, Skype > ola.liljedahl
