-----Original Message----- > Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 18:29:31 +0000 > From: Yongseok Koh <[email protected]> > To: Andrew Rybchenko <[email protected]>, Thomas Monjalon > <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Jerin > Jacob <[email protected]> > CC: Adrien Mazarguil <[email protected]>, Nélio Laranjeiro > <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" > <[email protected]>, "Ananyev, Konstantin" > <[email protected]>, Chao Zhu <[email protected]>, > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/8] eal: introduce DMA memory barriers > > > > On Jan 18, 2018, at 11:16 PM, Andrew Rybchenko <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > On 01/19/2018 03:44 AM, Yongseok Koh wrote: > >> This commit introduces rte_dma_wmb() and rte_dma_rmb(), in order to > >> guarantee the ordering of coherent shared memory between the CPU and a DMA > >> capable device. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Yongseok Koh > >> <[email protected]> > > > > Acked-by: Andrew Rybchenko <[email protected]> > > > > It is already really good. Many thanks. > > Thank you! > > > Maybe it would be useful to: > > - avoid duplication of so long explanations (put in in one place and add > > reference?) > > May have to ask Thomas how to do this. Thomas? > > > - explain why it is bound to DMA or call it in a different way, since > > right now it is bound > > to coherent-mapped IO (rte_cio_rmb() ?). Yes, I see benefits to follow > > Linux > > terminology, but may be DPDK can do better :) I just add my concerns, > > but let > > EAL code maintainers to decide > > Good idea. Like to hear from other people. But, following linux terms sometime > could be good to welcome developers from kernel community to DPDK world. :-) > > To people in the cc list, any other concerns? > Especially ARM users - Jianbo and Jerin?
I like Andrew's suggestion. IMO, rte_cio_?mb() makes more sense. > > Thanks, > Yongseok
