On Sat, Jun 20, 2026 at 5:41 AM Stephen Hemminger
<[email protected]> wrote:
> @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ dpaa2_create_dpbp_device(int vdev_fd __rte_unused,
> }
>
> dpbp_node->dpbp_id = dpbp_id;
> - rte_atomic16_init(&dpbp_node->in_use);
> + dpbp_node->in_use = 0;
The previous code implies an ordering barrier, so it guarantees that
dpbp_node->dpbp_id is visible before in_use, while the new code
doesn't. isn't the a problem?
>
> TAILQ_INSERT_TAIL(&dpbp_dev_list, dpbp_node, next);
>
> @@ -103,7 +103,10 @@ struct dpaa2_dpbp_dev *dpaa2_alloc_dpbp_dev(void)
>
> /* Get DPBP dev handle from list using index */
> TAILQ_FOREACH(dpbp_dev, &dpbp_dev_list, next) {
> - if (dpbp_dev && rte_atomic16_test_and_set(&dpbp_dev->in_use))
> + uint16_t expected = 0;
> + if (rte_atomic_compare_exchange_strong_explicit(
> + &dpbp_dev->in_use, &expected, 1,
> + rte_memory_order_acquire,
> rte_memory_order_relaxed))
aren't rte_atomic_flag_test_and_set_explicit/rte_atomic_flag_clear_explicit
a better candidates instead of
rte_atomic_compare_exchange_strong_explicit/rte_atomic_store_explicit
?
