From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01CF76DB2 for ; Sun, 30 Apr 2017 21:40:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F0BD207C6; Sun, 30 Apr 2017 15:40:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 30 Apr 2017 15:40:03 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=PPuIAHHpKKNDTpg 9zsXkTqRMfvh+YNR8XgFZTop4nGs=; b=gH9bDv/7/gQ/PrhD3m/nyFfebf9FIEp 4hjU13tFiX3FZabIahzUbTzX5USJsrD/kCXVTyY6ch+v6aP5MqhHpthKWC6sOiw1 7bdvMXTMnwD6GNYM3tB4jL1iRR9RW6i7+fyl7HonQPFIDAWkbjj+/zt0HzQVHVzo 32nQ1Zim8/LE= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; bh=PPuIAHHpKKNDTpg9zsXkTqRMfvh+YNR8XgFZTop4nGs=; b=flMnrZSO H3QBlDBOeAifyB8xiO4Xn2ghDgPLFteiefxYQ7e4CbVYxUVOpbm6gECdx7kTkS+H SOdXrfhua/M754Mo+RTl9EqUZTRmFMLNa/kniq+dEi/UT3hKS1i3WCkr4d4VMbmm RgRZmu4uwB0yDoFUqfaKHAxg9XAJv4Zim0gnzksESYrldADE04c283iqZZUfh7rC Q2Gl6hkngYBcM5uIuGZJyxAvWhPbEgRuNnGUiWTEjfgy2diOSPEFbGhijXXgO0Vw /HPWWhPxNXXu1QnSour54BEqjCZUq6NlcXMUFQoYawRQQ1we/x3ngbCDS4MYUEHa B/sAUa1Hs8q0ZA== X-ME-Sender: X-Sasl-enc: 42GRhOAd4oYAFPQa67dlWFFivJY7iINafS5n6KOvUik1 1493581203 Received: from xps.localnet (245.114.118.80.rev.sfr.net [80.118.114.245]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id DAA84245DF; Sun, 30 Apr 2017 15:40:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Bruce Richardson Cc: dev@dpdk.org Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 21:40:01 +0200 Message-ID: <1926047.JUkAzgJ2Ac@xps> In-Reply-To: <20170428131014.5137-1-bruce.richardson@intel.com> References: <20170428081551.28954-1-bruce.richardson@intel.com> <20170428131014.5137-1-bruce.richardson@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] mbuf: fix 64bit address alignment in 32-bit builds 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: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 19:40:04 -0000 28/04/2017 15:10, Bruce Richardson: > On i686 builds, the uin64_t type is 64-bits in size but is aligned to > 32-bits only. This causes mbuf fields for rearm_data to not be 16-byte > aligned on 32-bit builds, which causes errors with some vector PMDs which > expect the rearm data to be aligned as on 64-bit. > > Given that we cannot use the extra space in the data structures anyway, as > it's already used on 64-bit builds, we can just force alignment of the > physical address in the mbuf to 8-bytes in all cases. This has no effect on > 64-bit systems, but fixes the updated PMDs on 32-bit. > > Fixes: f4356d7ca168 ("net/i40e: eliminate mbuf write on rearm") > Fixes: f160666a1073 ("net/ixgbe: eliminate mbuf write on rearm") > > Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson > --- > v2: change alignment fix from being for all phys_addr_t vars to just > the one in the mbuf structure. This is a lower risk fix. Additional > patches promised to put in build-checks for alignment in vpmds will > be sent separately. Applied, thanks