From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E0BE8D8F for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 07:25:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Dec 2015 22:25:12 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,463,1444719600"; d="scan'208";a="712574120" Received: from yliu-dev.sh.intel.com (HELO yliu-dev) ([10.239.66.49]) by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Dec 2015 22:25:05 -0800 Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 14:26:19 +0800 From: Yuanhan Liu To: Santosh Shukla Message-ID: <20151222062619.GM18863@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> References: <1450098032-21198-1-git-send-email-sshukla@mvista.com> <1450098032-21198-2-git-send-email-sshukla@mvista.com> <20151217152435.3c733ac1@xeon-e3> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [ [PATCH v2] 01/13] virtio: Introduce config RTE_VIRTIO_INC_VECTOR X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 06:25:13 -0000 On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 06:16:36PM +0530, Santosh Shukla wrote: > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 4:54 AM, Stephen Hemminger > wrote: > > On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 17:32:38 +0530 > > Santosh Shukla wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Santosh Shukla wrote: > >> > virtio_recv_pkts_vec and other virtio vector friend apis are written for sse/avx > >> > instructions. For arm64 in particular, virtio vector implementation does not > >> > exist(todo). > >> > > >> > So virtio pmd driver wont build for targets like i686, arm64. By making > >> > RTE_VIRTIO_INC_VECTOR=n, Driver can build for non-sse/avx targets and will work > >> > in non-vectored virtio mode. > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Santosh Shukla > >> > --- > >> > >> Ping? > >> > >> any review / comment on this patch much appreciated. Thanks > > > > The patches I posted (and were ignored by Intel) to support indirect > > and any layout should have much bigger performance gain than all this > > low level SSE bit twiddling. > > > > I little confused - do we care for this patch? Santosh, As a reviewer that still have a lot of work to do, I don't have the bandwidth to review _all_ your patches carefully __once__. That is to say, I will only comment when I find something should be commented, from time to time when I put more thoughts there. For other patches I've no comment, it could mean that it's okay to me so far, or I'm not quite sure it's okay but I don't find anything obvious wrong. Hence, I put no comments so far. But later, when get time, I will revisit them, think more, and either ACK it, or comment it. So, you could simply keep those patches unchanged if they received no comments, and fix other comments, and send out a new version at anytime that is proper to you. --yliu