> > /**
> > @@ -179,7 +226,7 @@ rte_rwlock_write_lock(rte_rwlock_t *rwl)
> > static inline void
> > rte_rwlock_write_unlock(rte_rwlock_t *rwl)
> > {
> > - __atomic_store_n(&rwl->cnt, 0, __ATOMIC_RELEASE);
> > + __atomic_fetch_sub(&rwl->cnt, RTE_RWLOCK_WRITE,
> > __ATOMIC_RELEASE);
>
> Yes. This is correct, regardless if another writer thread is waiting or not.
> (Reviewed for one writer thread using rte_rwlock_write_lock() and another
> using rte_rwlock_write_trylock().)
>
Was trying to stick to original logic.
After writer releases want both writer and reader to be able to get in equally.
This provide a measure of fairness (no preference) so writers can't starve
readers either.
