On 19.02.2016 11:36, Xie, Huawei wrote: > On 2/19/2016 3:10 PM, Yuanhan Liu wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 09:32:43AM +0300, Ilya Maximets wrote: >>> Signed-off-by: Ilya Maximets <i.maximets at samsung.com> >>> --- >>> doc/guides/prog_guide/thread_safety_dpdk_functions.rst | 1 + >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/doc/guides/prog_guide/thread_safety_dpdk_functions.rst >>> b/doc/guides/prog_guide/thread_safety_dpdk_functions.rst >>> index 403e5fc..13a6c89 100644 >>> --- a/doc/guides/prog_guide/thread_safety_dpdk_functions.rst >>> +++ b/doc/guides/prog_guide/thread_safety_dpdk_functions.rst >>> @@ -67,6 +67,7 @@ then locking, or some other form of mutual exclusion, is >>> necessary. >>> The ring library is based on a lockless ring-buffer algorithm that >>> maintains its original design for thread safety. >>> Moreover, it provides high performance for either multi- or >>> single-consumer/producer enqueue/dequeue operations. >>> The mempool library is based on the DPDK lockless ring library and >>> therefore is also multi-thread safe. >>> +rte_vhost_enqueue_burst() is also thread safe because based on lockless >>> ring-buffer algorithm like the ring library. >> FYI, Huawei meant to make rte_vhost_enqueue_burst() not be thread-safe, >> to aligh with the usage of rte_eth_tx_burst(). >> >> --yliu > > I have a patch to remove the lockless enqueue. Unless there is strong > reason, i prefer vhost PMD to behave like other PMDs, with no internal > lockless algorithm. In future, for people who really need it, we could > have dynamic/static switch to enable it.
OK, got it. So, I think, this documentation patch may be dropped. Other patches of series still may be merged to fix existing issues and keep code in consistent state for the future. Am I right? Best regards, Ilya Maximets.
