<snip> > > 20/07/2020 17:44, Honnappa Nagarahalli: > > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > > > > > In the techboard of April 22, it has been decided to block patches > > > using rte_atomicNN_xx and rte_smp_*mb APIs, starting DPDK 20.08. > > > Meeting minutes: > > > http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2020-April/165143.html > > > Deprecation notice: > > > http://doc.dpdk.org/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.html > > > > > > Some doc has been submitted to help understanding how to manage > atomics: > > > http://doc > .dpdk.org/guides/prog_guide/writing_efficient_code.html#locks-and- > > > atomic-operations > > > > > > Unfortunately the tool to check new code was merged last week: > > > http://git.dpdk.org/dpdk/commit/?id=f1602b4a86 > > > > > > As a consequence, I propose to apply the "reject rule" starting DPDK > > > 20.11. > > > > As far as I know no patch with rte_atomic has gone in 20.08 so far. Are > > there > any patches in RC2/RC3 that need rte_atomic APIs? > > Yes we have the case of an additional call added in 20.08-rc2 in mlx5 (not yet > converted to C11 atomics). There is one patch that Phil had put together [1] for mlx5. Since this is a unconverted module, suggest allowing for 20.08 instead of removing the 'reject rule' patch.
[1] https://patches.dpdk.org/patch/72007/ > > > > Can we make this rule better advertised with an announce message? > > > > Do you mean an email on dpdk-announce mailing list? > > Yes > > > > Are the current technical explanations enough? > > > > The documentation patch you referenced above covers most common cases > people will encounter. Even the rte_ring/rte_stack algorithms work on the > same principles. > > > > > If not, it would be wonderful to have a blog post explaining the > > > details, as part of an announce. > > > > This is in the works. The plan is to send it to you soon and get it out > > along > with the release. > > Great >
