From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wj0-f173.google.com (mail-wj0-f173.google.com [209.85.210.173]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 855C02BC3 for ; Mon, 2 Jan 2017 21:41:11 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wj0-f173.google.com with SMTP id v7so431728112wjy.2 for ; Mon, 02 Jan 2017 12:41:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lKzzhZPSWE3+fDiwxHI7UQnia/GpocULGKqt/vf+uS8=; b=Ttxu0PJ1pJilDhMd2EbLrCOqX5UqBoj+lfkmhcvaCJf54qz040wRZL4olgJGiBGvzU ffftimTBzh/IrbrOHCMZIDRij7FeC54iC9xTO+HClPmThjVXZHBVR5TbXB8rjTi3p9Pj jWlhks+kCnb5ZKkOKIgjMsqc65OqecGC87kwB6FUx1QgHnB6n0Ht1U1OD52AD0Mac2Sn bicjNIO5Ry3igEAxEOP9VTVqDVEKv5u5mfjkk8/H9dJV6XYyErCJW+/b+gnYDfXx+U6M Z8jJWpqdYZEBhGCwz/+abWHQxsE2Z4rOeApgRWM76cV/sH1Tc6D0dJYH+k9NeUckUGSX Ws9Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lKzzhZPSWE3+fDiwxHI7UQnia/GpocULGKqt/vf+uS8=; b=TM8FZ+HS/JFzrJtPmr9OgIV+hU9lul+xqbMP+F/vUjUM7B2MS+XmimBPfzKpVIcIkD IfUS2wR6/SdCEPJpjUPdXKuUHObLdP4yGWTnrjkpmrwviCr/aB1jEUa/305KMZfQDSAS 6L7evKkofUNH0twZqtE5Yl/vgA8dsWQVlGCe8w3lziVcxFALGMPqg42bX2jIRGPz10rw Sc7cwGJzGv4OedzCfUx/BZC3JWD8jdU1BNs5lEiHTQWkMR3baT4uhibKciynCH4E7VWS DVfVDXVSFeMg0HhfkE5ynd+wJuCxzFz6HSD8RtOSwDFrm5dvhlHG2e11l0Tftw+ta47Y vTRg== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJXTHuvraN83OV9FEizfkQvIlMawYNK+jtUt5vT6HbQTP1Iz7gqOoQAblPCJ07+ehCM X-Received: by 10.194.80.42 with SMTP id o10mr60880821wjx.65.1483389671208; Mon, 02 Jan 2017 12:41:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from xps13.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net. [77.134.203.184]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 14sm86332835wmk.1.2017.01.02.12.41.10 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 02 Jan 2017 12:41:10 -0800 (PST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Wang, Zhihong" , Ravi Kerur Cc: dev@dpdk.org Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2017 21:41:09 +0100 Message-ID: <1828046.HL686xpgu5@xps13> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.5.4-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <8F6C2BD409508844A0EFC19955BE094110759EFE@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <1457391583-29604-1-git-send-email-rkerur@gmail.com> <8F6C2BD409508844A0EFC19955BE094110759EFE@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 2/2] Test cases for rte_memcmp functions X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2017 20:41:11 -0000 2016-06-07 11:09, Wang, Zhihong: > From: Ravi Kerur [mailto:rkerur@gmail.com] > > Zhilong, Thomas, > > > > If there is enough interest within DPDK community I can work on adding support > > for 'unaligned access' and 'test cases' for it. Please let me know either way. > > Hi Ravi, > > This rte_memcmp is proved with better performance than glibc's in aligned > cases, I think it has good value to DPDK lib. > > Though we don't have memcmp in critical pmd data path, it offers a better > choice for applications who do. Re-thinking about this series, could it be some values to have a rte_memcmp implementation? What is the value compared to glibc one? Why not working on glibc?