On Sun, 11 Oct 2026 18:21:53 +0000 Marat Khalili <[email protected]> wrote:
> In bpf_eth_cbi_unload(), rte_smp_mb() was called immediately before > bpf_eth_cbi_wait(), which itself starts with rte_smp_mb(). > > Remove the redundant rte_smp_mb() call from bpf_eth_cbi_unload() and > update the unload sequence diagram accordingly. > > Signed-off-by: Marat Khalili <[email protected]> > --- > lib/bpf/bpf_pkt.c | 3 --- > 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/lib/bpf/bpf_pkt.c b/lib/bpf/bpf_pkt.c > index 7ee16cfa69..68671848e9 100644 > --- a/lib/bpf/bpf_pkt.c > +++ b/lib/bpf/bpf_pkt.c > @@ -62,8 +62,6 @@ > * | | | | > | | > * rte_smp_mb() | | | > | | > * | | | | > | | > - * rte_smp_mb() | | | > | | > - * | | | | > | | > * +-if use is odd | | | > | if cb not NULL-+ > * | | | | | > | | | > * | +------------ fetch odd ------------>| | > |<-- execute --+ | > @@ -502,7 +500,6 @@ bpf_eth_cbi_unload(struct bpf_eth_cbi *bc) > { > /* mark this cbi as empty */ > bc->cb = NULL; > - rte_smp_mb(); > > /* make sure datapath doesn't use bpf anymore, then destroy bpf */ > bpf_eth_cbi_wait(bc); I think this already covered by: https://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/[email protected]/
