[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] lib/hash: remove unnecessary locks in lock-free

[Thomas Monjalon]

25/11/2019 23:55, Dharmik Thakkar:
> 
> > On Nov 25, 2019, at 4:44 PM, Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net> wrote:
> >
> > 25/11/2019 23:02, Wang, Yipeng1:
> >> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas at monjalon.net]
> >>> 25/11/2019 19:49, Wang, Yipeng1:
> >>>> From: Dharmik Thakkar [mailto:dharmik.thakkar at arm.com]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Remove __hash_rw_reader_unlock() calls from lock free hash lookup
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Dharmik Thakkar <dharmik.thakkar at arm.com>
> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Gavin Hu <gavin.hu at arm.com>
> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli at arm.com>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>> Acked-by: Yipeng Wang <yipeng1.wang at intel.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for the patch!
> >>>
> >>> Excuse me, there is no motivation (the why) in this patch.
> >>> Is it critical? which gain?
> >>>
> >> [Wang, Yipeng]
> >> Thomas, do you mean the commit message is not clear enough?
> >> I think it is self-explained that in the "lock-free" implementation, we don't need
> >> "read_unlock()" and the subject line also says that.
> >> But it is always better to be more explicit.
> >
> > I understand that it is not needed.
> > But it doesn't say what is the impact of having this unlock.
> > Is there a real performance impact?
> > Is it critical enough to be merged in 19.11-rc4?
> > If it is not candidate for 19.11, it is better to prepend the title with [20.02].
> >
> Thomas, I don’t think there is any performance impact. This is more of a clean-up patch.
> It is not critical as those “read_unlock()” don’t cause any error.
> Should I update the patch title with [20.02]?

No that's fine, it's clear now.
Thank you