From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D340D201 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2018 19:55:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098396.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id wA7InXgD061042 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2018 13:55:27 -0500 Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com (e35.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.153]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2nm49p3kck-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 07 Nov 2018 13:55:27 -0500 Received: from localhost by e35.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 7 Nov 2018 18:55:26 -0000 Received: from b03cxnp08026.gho.boulder.ibm.com (9.17.130.18) by e35.co.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.135) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Wed, 7 Nov 2018 18:55:23 -0000 Received: from b03ledav006.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03ledav006.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.237]) by b03cxnp08026.gho.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id wA7ItKqp21889178 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 7 Nov 2018 18:55:20 GMT Received: from b03ledav006.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1B8FC605B; Wed, 7 Nov 2018 18:55:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b03ledav006.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60B47C6057; Wed, 7 Nov 2018 18:55:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ltc.linux.ibm.com (unknown [9.16.170.189]) by b03ledav006.gho.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Wed, 7 Nov 2018 18:55:20 +0000 (GMT) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2018 10:58:00 -0800 From: dwilder To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: Pradeep Satyanarayana , dev@dpdk.org, adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com, Luca Boccassi , Chao Zhu , Christian Ehrhardt , TYOS@jp.ibm.com In-Reply-To: <8589266.XCptXWt5vM@xps> References: <2547699.pxo2WhrkVo@xps> <8589266.XCptXWt5vM@xps> X-Sender: dwilder@us.ibm.com User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.0.1 X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 18110718-0012-0000-0000-000016D6552F X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00010003; HX=3.00000242; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000268; SDB=6.01114088; UDB=6.00577572; IPR=6.00894187; MB=3.00024063; MTD=3.00000008; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2018-11-07 18:55:25 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 18110718-0013-0000-0000-000055093080 Message-Id: <395b5a36d9b0582179cadc825e351d51@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2018-11-07_14:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1807170000 definitions=main-1811070168 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ppc64: fix compilation of when AltiVec is enabled 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: Wed, 07 Nov 2018 18:55:29 -0000 On 2018-11-07 02:03, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 05/11/2018 22:20, Pradeep Satyanarayana: >> From: Thomas Monjalon >> > 30/08/2018 13:58, Christian Ehrhardt: >> > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 Takeshi T Yoshimura wrote: >> > > > Hi, >> > > > I could reproduce the issue you reported in 18.08 with my ppc64le >> > > > box with RedHat 7.5 and GCC4.8. >> > > > The patch resolved the issue in my environment. Thanks! >> > > >> > > I added your test (tanks) and Adrien's extensive review/discussion as >> > > tags and also addressed a few checkpatch findings. >> > > V2 is up on the list now ... >> > > >> > > > I am a bit newbie in dpdk-dev, but I will try contacting Chao >> > > > and other IBM guys... Sorry for our slow reply. >> > > >> > > Thanks for your participation Takeshi, >> > > we at least now have had a few replies after Thomas used the >> > > superpowers of "CPT. CAPSLOCK" \o/. >> > > >> > > I also have a call later today to make sure this is brought up >> > > inside IBM to make sure someone is maintaining it for real. >> > >> > Summary of the situation: >> > - I used caps lock on August 30th >> > - We got replies on the ML in the next 2 days (Alfredo, Chao, Takes= hi) >> > - On September 3rd, Adrien raised a major issue for C++ with the fi= x v3 >> > http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2018-September/110733.html >> > - Another email about a possible GCC fix on September 5th (David Wi= lder) >>=20 >> As Dave mentioned that is only expected in GCC 9. >>=20 >> > - There was a private reply on September 27th, confirming an IBM su= pport >> > - and nothing else >> > >> > Nobody at IBM requests to get a compilation fix for ppc64. >>=20 >> Yes, we do need fixes for ppc64. >>=20 >> (1)=20 >> http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2018-August/110499.html >> (2)=20 >> http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2018-September/110961.html >>=20 >> Based on the above 2 URLs (tested both by Takeshi and David Wiler), we >> assumed that it would get picked up in 18.11. >> We have been more focussed on 17.11 (and likely dropped >> the ball on 18.11) >> since 17.11 is an LTS release and we have had lots of problems on=20 >> ppc64. >=20 > Note that 18.11 is also LTS. >=20 >> Should be submitting patch to fix those issues shortly. >=20 > Sorry, I have some doubts for two reasons: > - track records > - technical reality: there is no perfect solution outside of GCC >=20 >> We have built 18.11-rc1 with the fix above (1), and it does work on >> ppc64le. >=20 > But it would break C++ applications. >=20 >> An updated version of: >>=20 >> (3)=20 >> http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2018-August/109926.html >>=20 >> also builds on ppc64. The latter has the advantage of possibly not >> breaking existing applications. >=20 I am not seeing any build breaks on upstream code with the=20 net-mlx5-fix-build-on-PPC64.patch applied. > But it fixes only mlx5. > stdbool is used in many other places. > Which PMDs are you compiling? CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_ARK_PMD=3Dy CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_AXGBE_PMD=3Dy CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_BNXT_PMD=3Dy CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_CXGBE_PMD=3Dy CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_DPAA_PMD=3Dy CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_DPAA2_PMD=3Dy CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_ENETC_PMD=3Dy CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_ENA_PMD=3Dy CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_EM_PMD=3Dy CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_IGB_PMD=3Dy CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_I40E_PMD=3Dy CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_AVF_PMD=3Dy CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_MLX5_PMD=3Dy CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_NFP_PMD=3Dy CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_QEDE_PMD=3Dy CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_THUNDERX_NICVF_PMD=3Dy CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_LIO_PMD=3Dy CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_OCTEONTX_PMD=3Dy CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_VIRTIO_PMD=3Dy CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_NETVSC_PMD=3Dy CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_VDEV_NETVSC_PMD=3Dy CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_IFC_PMD=3Dy CONFIG_RTE_TEST_PMD=3Dy > Are you compiling examples? Yes, no build issues seen. >=20 >> > And there was no issue raised after 18.11-rc1 release. >> > I guess it means DPDK is not used on ppc64. >> > In this case, we should mark the ppc port as unmaintained for 18.11. >> > >> > OR SHOULD I USE MY CAPS LOCK AGAIN? >>=20 >> Thanks for your patience while we iron out the issues. >> Hopefully, we don't need the CAPS LOCK again. >=20 > We have to mention the ppc64 incompatibility in 18.11 release notes. > Either it stays as is and we declare DPDK 18.11 not supported on > IBM platforms, or we fix it and document the limitations. If net-mlx5-fix-build-on-PPC64.patch is accepted I feel power can be=20 listed as supported for 18.11.