On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 15:53:34 -0700 Tyler Retzlaff <roret...@linux.microsoft.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 08:23:43AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > The DPDK is not designed to be used from a signal handler. > > Add a notice in the documentation describing this limitation, > > similar to Linux signal-safety manual page. > > > > Bugzilla ID: 1030 > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org> > > --- > > doc/guides/prog_guide/env_abstraction_layer.rst | 13 +++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/doc/guides/prog_guide/env_abstraction_layer.rst > > b/doc/guides/prog_guide/env_abstraction_layer.rst > > index 5f0748fba1c0..36ab4b5ba9b6 100644 > > --- a/doc/guides/prog_guide/env_abstraction_layer.rst > > +++ b/doc/guides/prog_guide/env_abstraction_layer.rst > > @@ -732,6 +732,19 @@ controlled with tools like taskset (Linux) or cpuset > > (FreeBSD), > > - with affinity restricted to 2-3, the Control Threads will end up on > > CPU 2 (main lcore, which is the default when no CPU is available). > > > > +Signal Safety > > +~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > + > > +The DPDK functions in general can not be safely called from a signal > > handler. > > +Most functions are not async-signal-safe because they can acquire locks > > +and other resources that make them nonrentrant. > > + > > +To avoid problems with unsafe functions, can be avoided if required > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > above doesn't quite read right for me, maybe a missing word / needs > re-wording? Yes, will reword that
