[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] rwlock: introduce 'try' semantics for RD and WR locking

[Bruce Richardson]

On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 10:56:09AM +0000, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mattias Rönnblom [mailto:hofors at lysator.liu.se]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2018 10:28 AM
> > To: Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli at arm.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org
> > Cc: nd <nd at arm.com>; Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China) <Gavin.Hu at arm.com>
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] rwlock: introduce 'try' semantics for RD and WR locking
> > 
> > On 2018-12-19 07:37, Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote:
> > >> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/rte_eal_version.map
> > >> b/lib/librte_eal/rte_eal_version.map
> > >> index 3fe78260d..8b1593dd8 100644
> > >> --- a/lib/librte_eal/rte_eal_version.map
> > >> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/rte_eal_version.map
> > >> @@ -355,6 +355,8 @@ EXPERIMENTAL {
> > >>   	rte_mp_request_async;
> > >>   	rte_mp_sendmsg;
> > >>   	rte_option_register;
> > >> +	rte_rwlock_read_trylock;
> > >> +	rte_rwlock_write_trylock;
> > > I do not see the other RW lock APIs in this file.
> > >
> > 
> > They, just like those added, are static inline functions, will not
> > result in any symbols in any shared objects and thus shouldn't be in any
> > version.map file.
> 
> So, are you guys trying to say that there is no need to put these 'trylock'
> functions into 'experimental' section?
> Konstantin
> 
Anything static inline doesn't have a mapfile entry, so there is no issue
there. However, the APIs themselves, since they are new should probably
have the __rte_experimental attribute marked on them in the code.

/Bruce