[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/2] Timer library changes

Varghese, Vipin vipin.varghese at intel.com
Thu Mar 7 03:33:50 CET 2019


Hi Gabriel,

Thanks for the clarification.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carrillo, Erik G
> Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:46 PM
> To: Varghese, Vipin <vipin.varghese at intel.com>; rsanford at akamai.com
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; techboard at dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/2] Timer library changes
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Varghese, Vipin
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 8:39 PM
> > To: Carrillo, Erik G <erik.g.carrillo at intel.com>; rsanford at akamai.com
> > Cc: dev at dpdk.org; techboard at dpdk.org
> > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/2] Timer library changes
> >
> > Hi Erik,
> >
> > Apologies if I am reaching out a bit late. Please find my query below
> >
> > <snipped>
> > > > This enables primary and secondary processes to modify the same
> > > > timer list, which enables some multi-process use cases that were
> > > > not previously possible; e.g. a secondary process can start a
> > > > timer whose expiration is detected in a primary process running a
> > > > new flavor of
> > > timer_manage().
> > Does this mean the following, primary can detect the timer expire
> > primed by secondary. On calling new timer_manage() from primary will
> > it invoke call back handler of secondary? If yes, has this been tested
> > with shared library too?
> > <snipped>
> 
> Hi Vipin,
> 
> No, with the proposed patch,  the callback handler would need to be a function
> pointer valid in the same process that is invoking the new timer_manage().
> 
> Thanks,
> Gabriel


More information about the dev mailing list