13/06/2023 11:25, Ruifeng Wang: > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > 12/06/2023 13:58, zhoumin: > > > On Mon, June 12, 2023 at 6:26PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > 15/05/2023 04:10, Zhang, Qi Z: > > > >> From: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.w...@arm.com> > > > >>> From: Min Zhou <zhou...@loongson.cn> > > > >>>> --- > > > >>>> v3: > > > >>>> - Use rte_smp_rmb() as the proper memory barrier instead of > > > >>>> rte_rmb() > > > >>>> --- > > > >>>> v2: > > > >>>> - Make the calling of rte_rmb() for all platforms > > > >>>> --- > > > > [...] > > > >>> Reviewed-by: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.w...@arm.com> > > > >> Applied to dpdk-next-net-intel. > > > >> > > > >> Thanks > > > >> Qi > > > >> > > > > Why ignoring checkpatch? > > > > It is saying: > > > > " > > > > Warning in drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c: > > > > Using rte_smp_[r/w]mb > > > > " > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry. Should we never use rte_smp_[r/w]mb in the driver's code? > > > > No we should avoid. > > It has been decided to slowly replace such barriers. > > By the way, I think it is not enough documented. > > You can find an explanation in doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > > > > I think we should also add some notes to > > lib/eal/include/generic/rte_atomic.h > > Tyler, Honnappa, Ruifeng, Konstantin, what do you think? > > > > Agree that we should add notes to rte_atomic.h. > The notes were not there for the sake of avoiding warnings on existing > occurrences. > With Tyler's rte_atomic series merged, rte_atomicNN_xx can be marked as > __rte_deprecated. > rte_smp_*mb can be marked as __rte_deprecated after existing occurrences are > converted.
Would you like to add some function comments to explain why it is deprecated?
