> > The usage is okay. The value is used to notify the VSP (Hyper-V). It's > > always set > (no read) from DPDK. > > > > OK, so my question was not "does it need to be atomic", but rather "why isn't > it > marked RTE_ATOMIC() when it's treated as atomic". > > But what you are saying is that it need not be atomic? Just the equivalent of > WRITE_ONCE()? Or a relaxed atomic store?
Sorry I misunderstood your question. Yes, it will be a good idea to make "pending" as RTE_ATOMIC. This value needs to be atomic. However, the existing code is still correct in that updating is done in atomic.
