> -----Original Message----- > From: David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com> > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 8:21 PM > To: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.w...@arm.com> > Cc: dev <dev@dpdk.org>; Ray Kinsella <m...@ashroe.eu>; Ananyev, > Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; Honnappa Nagarahalli > <honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com>; nd <n...@arm.com>; Vladimir > Medvedkin <vladimir.medved...@intel.com> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v10 0/3] RCU integration with LPM library > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 4:22 AM Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.w...@arm.com> > wrote: > > > > This patchset integrates RCU QSBR support with LPM library. > > > > Resource reclaimation implementation was splitted from the original > > series, and has already been part of RCU library. Rework the series to > > base LPM integration on RCU reclaimation APIs. > > > > New API rte_lpm_rcu_qsbr_add is introduced for application to register > > a RCU variable that LPM library will use. This provides user the > > handle to enable RCU that integrated in LPM library. > > > > Functional tests and performance tests are added to cover the > > integration with RCU. > > Series applied. > > A comment though. > > I am surprised to see the defer queue is still exposed out of lpm. > > +int rte_lpm_rcu_qsbr_add(struct rte_lpm *lpm, struct rte_lpm_rcu_config > *cfg, > + struct rte_rcu_qsbr_dq **dq); > > If this is intended, we will need unit tests for this parameter as I could see > none. > Else, it can be removed. > Looking at comments in v4, there was consensus that exposure of defer queue is not needed. Enough flexibility has been provided to configure defer queue. I should have removed this prarameter.
> Please send a followup patch for rc2. Will send out followup patch. Thanks. /Ruifeng > Thanks. > > > -- > David Marchand
