> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 11:53 PM
> To: Zhang, Qi Z <[email protected]>; zhoumin <[email protected]>;
> Ruifeng Wang
> <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> Yang, Qiming
> <[email protected]>; Wu, Wenjun1 <[email protected]>;
> [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; nd
> <[email protected]>;
> [email protected]; Honnappa Nagarahalli
> <[email protected]>; Tyler
> Retzlaff <[email protected]>; [email protected]; nd
> <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] net/ixgbe: add proper memory barriers for some Rx
> functions
>
> 13/06/2023 11:25, Ruifeng Wang:
> > From: Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]>
> > > 12/06/2023 13:58, zhoumin:
> > > > On Mon, June 12, 2023 at 6:26PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > > > 15/05/2023 04:10, Zhang, Qi Z:
> > > > >> From: Ruifeng Wang <[email protected]>
> > > > >>> From: Min Zhou <[email protected]>
> > > > >>>> ---
> > > > >>>> v3:
> > > > >>>> - Use rte_smp_rmb() as the proper memory barrier instead of
> > > > >>>> rte_rmb()
> > > > >>>> ---
> > > > >>>> v2:
> > > > >>>> - Make the calling of rte_rmb() for all platforms
> > > > >>>> ---
> > > > > [...]
> > > > >>> Reviewed-by: Ruifeng Wang <[email protected]>
> > > > >> Applied to dpdk-next-net-intel.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks
> > > > >> Qi
> > > > >>
> > > > > Why ignoring checkpatch?
> > > > > It is saying:
> > > > > "
> > > > > Warning in drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c:
> > > > > Using rte_smp_[r/w]mb
> > > > > "
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm sorry. Should we never use rte_smp_[r/w]mb in the driver's code?
> > >
> > > No we should avoid.
> > > It has been decided to slowly replace such barriers.
> > > By the way, I think it is not enough documented.
> > > You can find an explanation in doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> > >
> > > I think we should also add some notes to
> > > lib/eal/include/generic/rte_atomic.h
> > > Tyler, Honnappa, Ruifeng, Konstantin, what do you think?
> > >
> >
> > Agree that we should add notes to rte_atomic.h.
> > The notes were not there for the sake of avoiding warnings on existing
> > occurrences.
> > With Tyler's rte_atomic series merged, rte_atomicNN_xx can be marked as
> > __rte_deprecated.
> > rte_smp_*mb can be marked as __rte_deprecated after existing occurrences
> > are converted.
>
> Would you like to add some function comments to explain why it is deprecated?
>
Sure. Added notes in patch:
http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/[email protected]/
