Bruce Richardson, May 18, 2026 at 17:28:
> On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 05:25:43PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>> 18/05/2026 17:14, Robin Jarry:
>> > Hey Thomas,
>> >
>> > Thomas Monjalon, May 18, 2026 at 17:07:
>
> <snip>
>
>>
>> [...]
>> > > @@ -246,10 +246,9 @@ static inline void
>> > > rte_spinlock_recursive_unlock(rte_spinlock_recursive_t *slr)
>> > > __rte_no_thread_safety_analysis
>> > > {
>> > > if (--(slr->count) == 0) {
>> >
>> > This code is completely broken. Any thread can unlock without any check.
>>
>> Maybe, but I don't intend to fix recursive unlock in this patch.
>> The subject is "remove volatile qualifier" (and unblock GCC 16).
>>
> As with regular mutexes, threads should not go around unlocking when not
> holding the lock. Therefore, I think this is fine. [With regular spinlocks
> we can't check since we don't track threads, therefore I think we just need
> to assume a well-behaved app.]
Ok, fair enough :)
As Stephen suggested, maybe we could add some assertions?
static inline void rte_spinlock_recursive_unlock(rte_spinlock_recursive_t *slr)
__rte_no_thread_safety_analysis
{
+ RTE_ASSERT(rte_atomic_load_explicit(&slr->user,
rte_memory_order_relaxed) == rte_gettid());
+ RTE_ASSERT(slr->count > 0);
+
