[PATCH v2] eal: add destructor to unregister tailq on unload

[David Marchand]

On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 at 17:58, Stephen Hemminger
<stephen at networkplumber.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 09:19:42 +0800
> fengchengwen <fengchengwen at huawei.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > +RTE_EXPORT_SYMBOL(rte_eal_tailq_unregister)
> >
> > this should be with EXPERIMENTAL
>
> Not possible, this is part of the EAL_REGISTER_TAILQ macro and usage
> is under the covers. So if anything was marked experimental it would
> fail code that did not allow experimental

Indeed.


> > > +void
> > > +rte_eal_tailq_unregister(struct rte_tailq_elem *t)
> > > +{
> > > +   TAILQ_REMOVE(&rte_tailq_elem_head, t, next);
> >
> > We need first make sure it exist the tailq, just like TAILQ_FOREACH rte_eal_tailq_local_register()
>
> Ok cheap scan since not in critical path.

I had excluded this point when looking at the v2 patch, considering
that abort() is called in the constructor on failure, and destructors
are not called after abort().

Is your concern that rte_eal_tailq_unregister could be called
directory by the application with random pointer?
A check would be safer on paper, but it seems strange to protect here.

Am I missing another case?


-- 
David Marchand