On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 17:25:32 +0000
Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula <pbhagavat...@marvell.com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
Forgot, these locks used linked list of waiters, and root is a pointer.
