> On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 18:44:36 +0530
> <pbhagavat...@marvell.com> wrote:
>
> > +struct sw_vector_adapter_service_data {
> > + uint32_t service_id;
> > + RTE_ATOMIC(rte_mcslock_t *) lock;
> > + RTE_TAILQ_HEAD(, sw_vector_adapter_data) adapter_list;
> > +};
>
> Why the indirect pointer to the lock? rather than embedding it in
> the structure?IIUC, the lock itself is declared and used as a pointer right? I looked at examples from test_mcslock.c, and this seemed correct.
