From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BF1ACD6E64 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2023 12:53:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6E98402EE; Wed, 11 Oct 2023 14:53:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 193FF402E2 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2023 14:53:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DBC55C034F; Wed, 11 Oct 2023 08:53:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 11 Oct 2023 08:53:47 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t= 1697028827; x=1697115227; bh=jZChgsriPtV0EmkvcvLopDUDVZIr/l5hrRd edoik0Wo=; b=rwD8wZyY83hhxAbrp0tN27j7kIWzJlW4ER34fyH76PLPcdZiKjw cg5wB27lM4LsbjrqK/6xmy3JtKt/iwcmQonjTUNkg9abg9q2IyKD6gxjx33ruFfp //2/if8DSaJepmrE8i3FFftrGCJCOZWuXWMCP+CXu1QgcJIE48yVYLbkCjlilRkf YwU/LnsWnwzuVxACC7qNLP3hKKv3z73Yxka/rkXl0AQTOo+6DYVrvIsQIS7G8dYq OCbfOtMyJ8Dw+oE51+ez0RPgH53m9IdQI/qmZ1wAPF3uDIBvaScenDQpq7lSLgOQ YyS0mscCEyl1fETQKij1KVCRxxWAr+zfiZQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; t= 1697028827; x=1697115227; bh=jZChgsriPtV0EmkvcvLopDUDVZIr/l5hrRd edoik0Wo=; b=f5I55jApERV+t5QvnjiDA90vtFoQ5xeNO4UOZwaDMm/5Oybszq+ o9gm5G/DcLmljml2zSBLNqunW34D2+NG7gwK8rVJ4L1ESQRMIUaJXQMBg1Xlmbvo vSdTfGygnp+9qTl3MpmS00lSBY/GzpIkznQddAF0tq7gX63p2VDZV5JQeALEPnZ5 Xs1xzOHRQhq4HSq6ZTCfDU6sTHPU3fzU8vrD0C4y5SxWCSSwuX17gLpYXbQKqC1V WzTrjtSkDHWC8beL7320KbxbXpax0epXKlHKhpTBDYkLq83qtfP++2z1JpUx5ytL t4BNBtzLQ4YSJmb7FkT8MwD/qy17fVKBihA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvkedrheekgdehhecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvfevufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnheptdejieeifeehtdffgfdvleetueeffeehueejgfeuteeftddtieek gfekudehtdfgnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrh homhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i47234305:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 11 Oct 2023 08:53:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: David Marchand Cc: dev@dpdk.org, probb@iol.unh.edu, bruce.richardson@intel.com, ferruh.yigit@amd.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] Release ethdev shared memory on port cleanup Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2023 14:53:45 +0200 Message-ID: <113137012.nniJfEyVGO@thomas> In-Reply-To: <20230927114515.1245213-1-david.marchand@redhat.com> References: <20230818091321.2404089-1-david.marchand@redhat.com> <20230927114515.1245213-1-david.marchand@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org 27/09/2023 13:45, David Marchand: > This series was triggered after investigating why the > eal_flags_file_prefix_autotest unit test was failing in the case of > statically built binaries [1]). > > For now, I went with a simple (naive) approach and put all accesses to the > shared data under a single lock: ethdev maintainers, it is your turn to > shine and give me reasons why we should keep the locks the way they > were ;-). > And let's see what the CI reports... Applied, thanks.