On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 12:50:42PM +0200, Morten Brørup wrote: > > From: Mattias Rönnblom [mailto:mattias.ronnb...@ericsson.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, 30 March 2022 12.07 > > > + > > +/** > > + * The RTE seqlock type. > > + */ > > +typedef struct { > > + uint32_t sn; /**< A generation number for the protected data. */ > > + rte_spinlock_t lock; /**< Spinlock used to serialize writers. */ > > +} rte_seqlock_t; > > + > > You refer to 'sn' as the sequence number everywhere else, so please document > is as such: > "/**< Sequence number for the protected data. */" > > Also, consider making 'sn' volatile, although it is only accessed through the > __atomic_load_n() function. I don't know if it makes any difference, so I'm > just bringing this to the attention of the experts!
i don't think there is value added by cv-volatile qualification. if we want correct/portable behavior for all targets then we should just access with appropriate atomics builtins/intrinsics they will be qualifying volatile and generating correct barriers when necessary. > > Acked-by: Morten Brørup <m...@smartsharesystems.com> >
