[dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 4/4] doc: add note about rte_vhost_enqueue_burst thread safety.

[Ilya Maximets]

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.