04/05/2026 19:02, Stephen Hemminger: > On Mon, 4 May 2026 10:37:14 +0200 > Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]> wrote: > > > diff --git a/lib/eal/include/generic/rte_spinlock.h > > b/lib/eal/include/generic/rte_spinlock.h > > index c907d4e45c..19c0e34f0a 100644 > > --- a/lib/eal/include/generic/rte_spinlock.h > > +++ b/lib/eal/include/generic/rte_spinlock.h > > @@ -197,8 +197,8 @@ rte_spinlock_trylock_tm(rte_spinlock_t *sl) > > */ > > typedef struct { > > rte_spinlock_t sl; /**< the actual spinlock */ > > - volatile int user; /**< core id using lock, -1 for unused */ > > - volatile int count; /**< count of time this lock has been called */ > > + int user; /**< core id using lock, -1 for unused */ > > + int count; /**< count of time this lock has been called */ > > It might make sense to use unsigned for count, and sized types. > I.e do you really need 32 bit values?
Such a change would need to be evaluated in a performance benchmark. > Only in tree use of recursive spinlock in vdev code. > > PS: I wonder if we really need to keep the transactional memory versions of > stuff. I don't know, it's part of the API and has no maintenance cost.
