Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v10 0/3] RCU integration with LPM library

[Ruifeng Wang <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>
> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 8:21 PM
> To: Ruifeng Wang <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>
> Cc: dev <dev@dpdk.org>; Ray Kinsella <mdr@ashroe.eu>; Ananyev,
> Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>; Honnappa Nagarahalli
> <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>; nd <nd@arm.com>; Vladimir
> Medvedkin <vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v10 0/3] RCU integration with LPM library
> 
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 4:22 AM Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.wang@arm.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > This patchset integrates RCU QSBR support with LPM library.
> >
> > Resource reclaimation implementation was splitted from the original
> > series, and has already been part of RCU library. Rework the series to
> > base LPM integration on RCU reclaimation APIs.
> >
> > New API rte_lpm_rcu_qsbr_add is introduced for application to register
> > a RCU variable that LPM library will use. This provides user the
> > handle to enable RCU that integrated in LPM library.
> >
> > Functional tests and performance tests are added to cover the
> > integration with RCU.
> 
> Series applied.
> 
> A comment though.
> 
> I am surprised to see the defer queue is still exposed out of lpm.
> 
> +int rte_lpm_rcu_qsbr_add(struct rte_lpm *lpm, struct rte_lpm_rcu_config
> *cfg,
> +    struct rte_rcu_qsbr_dq **dq);
> 
> If this is intended, we will need unit tests for this parameter as I could see
> none.
> Else, it can be removed.
> 
Looking at comments in v4, there was consensus that exposure of defer queue is not needed. Enough flexibility has been provided to configure defer queue.
I should have removed this prarameter.

> Please send a followup patch for rc2.
Will send out followup patch.
Thanks.

/Ruifeng
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> --
> David Marchand