From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124])
	by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98125455CB;
	Tue,  9 Jul 2024 05:18:24 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DF0E427E7;
	Tue,  9 Jul 2024 05:18:24 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.189])
 by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78352402B8
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue,  9 Jul 2024 05:18:22 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.88.105])
 by szxga03-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4WJ5gj0ZGCzQl0c;
 Tue,  9 Jul 2024 11:14:25 +0800 (CST)
Received: from kwepemm600004.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.193.23.242])
 by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F7541402CA;
 Tue,  9 Jul 2024 11:18:19 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [10.67.121.59] (10.67.121.59) by kwepemm600004.china.huawei.com
 (7.193.23.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2,
 cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.39; Tue, 9 Jul
 2024 11:18:18 +0800
Message-ID: <2f59259a-1c2c-01ab-9f7d-967c7c11b375@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 11:18:18 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.2.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] examples/l3fwd-power: add PM QoS configuration
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
CC: <dev@dpdk.org>, <mb@smartsharesystems.com>, <thomas@monjalon.net>,
 <ferruh.yigit@amd.com>, <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>, <david.hunt@intel.com>,
 <sivaprasad.tummala@amd.com>, <david.marchand@redhat.com>,
 <liuyonglong@huawei.com>
References: <20240320105529.5626-1-lihuisong@huawei.com>
 <20240709022927.26625-1-lihuisong@huawei.com>
 <20240709022927.26625-3-lihuisong@huawei.com>
 <20240708200718.4a85ac3f@hermes.local>
From: "lihuisong (C)" <lihuisong@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240708200718.4a85ac3f@hermes.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Originating-IP: [10.67.121.59]
X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems702-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.179) To
 kwepemm600004.china.huawei.com (7.193.23.242)
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org


在 2024/7/9 11:07, Stephen Hemminger 写道:
> On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 10:29:27 +0800
> Huisong Li <lihuisong@huawei.com> wrote:
>
>> +	RTE_LCORE_FOREACH(lcore_id) {
>> +		if (rte_lcore_is_enabled(lcore_id) == 0)
>> +			continue;
>>
> Why do you need this check? RTE_LCORE_FOREACH calls rte_next_lcore which
> already skips lcores that are not enabled.
Yes, it is dead code. will delete it in next version. Thanks.
> .