From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29F1443C5E; Wed, 6 Mar 2024 15:43:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0FCD40A6D; Wed, 6 Mar 2024 15:43:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from fout3-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout3-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.146]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEB9640276 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2024 15:43:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailfout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C1E013800CB; Wed, 6 Mar 2024 09:43:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 06 Mar 2024 09:43:08 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1709736188; x=1709822588; bh=BFK7Oyavo4nxm5Ck1JJlsymE89/RgjLarMTtMz6/n6I=; b= euW43bzTpUCxlWoA88vGKx7KxtMRjmCoakfCXj7ED7X+xdUSp+ea7bpzrRmTRdUi xcB/K3iqBVCjynF+2Qgh6T7q+O8FCR3xAn8bu66wS7PNZpheeg6wmuOjKVajKJCq 6+8aHaFKmBcsYA8YXTgf/IVm6M+agz9yFQJL8omSbamel2onCeV4ij6nqNwHsh56 ss/uEaL07DFFatFbCpg68UJHnmf2bbddaOSWeZTbivGTwqeERhAeka1Xm9E8YUTX 5R2un3pm9M2zN4gP5XXFWPuaLF4w0kgTgGMxd4sWDRxO7dT9ioKPYC+kMZRWL7FA npE6Uxpw7TVY0E2k2Dk17A== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t=1709736188; x= 1709822588; bh=BFK7Oyavo4nxm5Ck1JJlsymE89/RgjLarMTtMz6/n6I=; b=N GaFgrydKmVTjkzW2Ro4KQ6hQ49+uAyz8idDf/Z2rowYZqk6GtFTwTigg5VB5+GV2 BE8ChR6tUQ4ZJ6R3CrM08teh0+tPmkUUmfoZnHvHB8SmNd5JBztcAok5yuVJMDJ5 1Q9u6ybmKB5hiFD2954lxYXaPuIQwbzdmx3S85MP+sKtJoXwmMqtgZkC+bkqCx7c cJy25K+EP4XoiDjyMC3LQ1PDhmN+aHsjwBzaK8vxMdK5hbgZ+GRTheczDKHsBcGI ZyGWB0D+6I2dSA4Im8rr50DyW3jG2MsxM6B/Ib68MTp/00WgkH5fjQAjE6ZC0Rwp pIhyhjL3cNSDmB8J8KYTw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvledriedugdeigecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvfevufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnheptdejieeifeehtdffgfdvleetueeffeehueejgfeuteeftddtieek gfekudehtdfgnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrh homhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i47234305:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 6 Mar 2024 09:43:06 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Wathsala Wathawana Vithanage Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Ruifeng Wang , "bruce.richardson@intel.com" , nd , Honnappa Nagarahalli , nd , paul.szczepanek@arm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] config/arm: use common cpu arch for cross files Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2024 15:43:04 +0100 Message-ID: <11478065.MucGe3eQFb@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20230822074743.3243015-1-joyce.kong@arm.com> <14316419.VsHLxoZxqI@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org 22/02/2024 22:38, Wathsala Wathawana Vithanage: > Hi Thomas, > > > > [host_machine] > > > system = 'linux' > > > cpu_family = 'aarch64' > > > -cpu = 'armv8-a' > > > +cpu = 'aarch64' > > > > Why aarch64 here and below? > > Joyce is no longer with Arm, and we have not been able to figure out > this patch. I think the first patch of this series makes sense. > This second patch to us looks like a nice to have, rather than something > that fixes an issue. Therefore, we would like to pull this patch out of the > series and leave first patch intact. > Any concerns/comments on that? OK What will become this second patch?