[PATCH 0/6] windows: remove most pthread lifetime shim functions

[David Marchand]

On Fri, Jun 2, 2023 at 6:22 PM Tyler Retzlaff
<roretzla at linux.microsoft.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 12:23:39PM +0000, Zhang, Qi Z wrote:
> > The patchset looks good to me.
> >
> > I have just one question regarding the patch set targets, which include PMD iavf, ice, and ixgbe. However, I noticed that some other Intel PMDs like ipn3ke still use rte_ctrl_thread_create and have not been replaced.
>
> The series really isn't about rte_ctrl_thread_create, it just happens
> that for code built on Windows that code needs to stop using
> rte_ctrl_thread_create because it references the pthread shim that is
> being removed.
>
> At some point in the future (it's lower priority right now) I will
> submit a series that converts all rte_ctrl_thread_create ->
> rte_control_thread_create since rte_ctrl_thread_create is being
> deprecated.
>
> >
> > I assume that this replacement is specifically intended for PMDs that support Windows, as PMDs with the "Windows" feature should be covered. However, I didn't see the "Windows" feature enabled for iavf PMD, even though it is included in the patch set.
> >
> > Could you help me understand the criteria used for determining which PMDs should be included in this replacement?
>
> Yes, you are correct the patch is intended to address PMDs / code built
> on Windows specifically. I just re-verified that iavf is being built
> for Windows.
>
> If I remove the iavf patch from the series I get the following warning,
> so that is why I adapted the iavf PMD code.
>
>   [249/749] Compiling C object
>   drivers/libtmp_rte_net_iavf.a.p/net_iavf_iavf_vchnl.c.obj
>   ../drivers/net/iavf/iavf_vchnl.c:162:2: warning: implicit declaration of
>   function 'pthread_join' is invalid in C99
>   [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
>           pthread_join(handler->tid, NULL);
>
> >
> > Thanks
> > Qi
> >
> > >
> > > The changes are straightforward and lgtm.
> > > For the series,
> > > Reviewed-by: David Marchand <david.marchand at redhat.com>
>
> I think with the above explained the series should be okay as is, no
> changes required if Qi is okay with the above explanation.

Which seems to be the case.
Thank you.


-- 
David Marchand