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 CB6A145E0B; Mon, 2 Dec 2024 23:36:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BB7840270; Mon, 2 Dec 2024 23:36:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-pf1-f174.google.com (mail-pf1-f174.google.com [209.85.210.174]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C9AB4025D for ; Mon, 2 Dec 2024 23:36:10 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-pf1-f174.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-724f1ce1732so3771185b3a.1 for ; Mon, 02 Dec 2024 14:36:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=networkplumber-org.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1733178969; x=1733783769; darn=dpdk.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=sOMq+0s3Qi0//ZlOOYd8O6edn2nUno6VWrlWO1K+g/o=; b=2uQXGzF73fBGjALhoOGR6rh3RVa8eLquDzAi4w82EnXT/z4DmLocdosmnw2Aa1ioYu z0UIYhCG8JDO0T9OiLs+imLvCcL0XQx9q5rec4DBVZs3s7pRxc8n00izwXKZOGBMGqGP Gic30m4Ry37vC3NJS5Z+4r0n95qTQxPa14fqje6ew/G8MQMJ1FyNnzWFsRJyODvwjOfr kUIRQ9BBx4cBvLMLa23GUrm33aPM6ak3k5MMUJwpdSMiRkKXH1RSD+A5hCamLwffiX4L Qa48fDmqthmcou1MlYwqej3FSf2vYOzq87LgbSxyezNj0dZdyIO8PI1yz3lPDCnqZXTa B+sA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1733178969; x=1733783769; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=sOMq+0s3Qi0//ZlOOYd8O6edn2nUno6VWrlWO1K+g/o=; b=eZGZDKJYbocXPnTUsVFCkH6MqWesJ7OUnkSt6vri0MWK2xfd7vHYJPzmmVVd+OpzQe d+uK2+5pY7diuJNtqpRmmWyH4IkBc3Rh0BPaX5p8bJANeb1teTfHP1QG+rXYIaw0ZMPF L1UwrMjizmkBkF1bavwHEA1kclPy/ML+eAOlctC9nYNT1DMKBuR55E6d10Vsff/ur0IP zmjKNjsZPtSeWH+wYH69zV/yvOG7cYqql88bA/e35aTi1r1PxM0nddUeqnsnM9y9b55s /uSngJnceas3AWUP2PjHrPc6Wmdof3gCNRwFAOb+AK1tFtLgNfbow7x7mcDed3LszhZI OcwA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxKY6ym1MqOsZgnjzeyJLutKkQZbDgT75cqeuWLXXJfArKlyOB+ A6TaOw3pMq9o/XU6Nh0Cxxq8lTgdij8feNNaHfl3VYdsCHbYUSAmlHNF2E0121E= X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncvggc6A4aCMNGiJ+zvN93C+7QML/NplhUS3BGdKVuuCz6S8VStCHYDgt1n5LFe YDxS8IO5WGgvW4bnET34vKUs6dlsomgCI15CWNmIX4diwqrA2VdtS0MxVfoRYzOzUFs+F1MRfu4 F7+v87A0dSZJiTET2f1dpZjMLZfY7n3G8Z326N7KTg3FowUPo3hTZOeo+l5UzlOf9fsl7tLsUgI CMY9DH9MzQJci3d0qhcAMhCMzsDfoegL4oHy1g61RPsiGE00FSOp2N2kY0xkSc6jembS3+3XVz5 u+WWT+UEy0sD7J/tXtlk/edyGq8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHOhzSpZx4EGsyKaGvxqVPFf5VGuW6e1dsNbYF7hxRAOJd1TQklqG1pkzRZYI3w0xt0uEvOwA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:4f4e:b0:2ee:ba0c:1726 with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-2ef012748c0mr286830a91.34.1733178969614; Mon, 02 Dec 2024 14:36:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from hermes.local (204-195-96-226.wavecable.com. [204.195.96.226]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 98e67ed59e1d1-2eea942f6a8sm3452426a91.41.2024.12.02.14.36.09 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 02 Dec 2024 14:36:09 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2024 14:36:07 -0800 From: Stephen Hemminger To: Arkadiusz Kusztal Cc: dev@dpdk.org, ferruh.yigit@amd.com, kai.ji@intel.com, brian.dooley@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] net: add thread-safe crc api Message-ID: <20241202143607.40555941@hermes.local> In-Reply-To: <20241001181150.43506-2-arkadiuszx.kusztal@intel.com> References: <20241001181150.43506-1-arkadiuszx.kusztal@intel.com> <20241001181150.43506-2-arkadiuszx.kusztal@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 19:11:48 +0100 Arkadiusz Kusztal wrote: > The current net CRC API is not thread-safe, this patch > solves this by adding another, thread-safe API functions. Couldn't the old API be made threadsafe with TLS? > This API is also safe to use across multiple processes, > yet with limitations on max-simd-bitwidth, which will be checked only by > the process that created the CRC context; all other processes will use > the same CRC function when used with the same CRC context. > It is an undefined behavior when process binaries are compiled > with different SIMD capabilities when the same CRC context is used. > > Signed-off-by: Arkadiusz Kusztal The API/ABI can't change for 25.03, do you want to support both? Or wait until 25.11?