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 27874A0C41; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 12:25:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A3124003F; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 12:25:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from new4-smtp.messagingengine.com (new4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.230]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1055F4003E; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 12:25:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3061058062D; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 06:24:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 23 Jun 2021 06:24:59 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm1; bh= XP0Od3UvWeSGgAB76EG2PH079FA5x7cRDo0BZxTr3K8=; b=0lZYDAObZ1mfAGmB hjH81XwhZ8ESn14NJXIZY/MDhgYNHGSARhQp9z2Vrz0NSw79ahTfm9A+R9+qpRUC 0/jnbQYArwSW2WVychEYYyIvQF193OZR1FjyDRbjJt/fhgZ2WbUiKk3Y38uaMLkX ahsdF5MdQNOnn8+ERu8Ts6ktht4iK0M2d8sCQeQY/uiStTlxLlsxeAoLtGCD41W6 TPWU3JtEX9F8+YKDB+CM+pAU7/a2klrn7yb5VWBT76W3DnZMn7Hw7mgHpNws48TC gwbg9NIWOIiEMx2EBMjsUSaJr+SD6c/fwm4QFVWhPDcdu4GWCOmNudzf91lCphhX AJ3/Rg== 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-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=XP0Od3UvWeSGgAB76EG2PH079FA5x7cRDo0BZxTr3 K8=; b=SGsTXvjdtkjnL3w3A5MgR+1k0YC3aVcRat8YqbIRzCC1ELCScw0QjXcFT crHDNzNH0retBxfj5uK7MfQvZZSceO3QkK7XRKYE7NS1Q9C/7sRoQa0eUH2Zjc9A YKhXtiSbvGoXfIIpSlD5aoHLcJS5q0jJYPTVjLgn5oK1vQNrbJA5jcFC261P31kd j0v6EUqQ5BD6/kMh1PxiDMyGty9+II6QMzCsJvVZtfkapJC5rThD4qPql53zG0oD 4vcPFOScbIdOZp54PExDbFtJoZNQ6kLRGgp3jQeFydxhmDC82ZpHYsy8U4XnQxQq vyKUxH2IMY5n/oWo/eIlO6z0wm57A== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrfeegfedgvdelucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepuedtveelgeevheefvdeitdefteefffefveeutefggffgheehteef uefffeehfeefnecuffhomhgrihhnpehgnhhurdhorhhgpdguphgukhdrohhrghenucevlh hushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshes mhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 06:24:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Tyler Retzlaff , Honnappa Nagarahalli Cc: Joyce Kong , dev@dpdk.org, "david.marchand@redhat.com" , "stephen@networkplumber.org" , "olivier.matz@6wind.com" , "andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru" , "harry.van.haaren@intel.com" , Ruifeng Wang , "dev@dpdk.org" , nd , "techboard@dpdk.org" , nd Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 12:24:55 +0200 Message-ID: <7557795.l8Y19qOmnl@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20210604094624.31308-1-joyce.kong@arm.com> <20210617152155.GD29777@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/8] use GCC's C11 atomic builtins for test 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 Sender: "dev" 18/06/2021 01:26, Honnappa Nagarahalli: > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 09:54:51PM -0500, Joyce Kong wrote: > > > Since C11 memory model is adopted in DPDK now[1], use GCC's atomic > > > builtins in test cases. > > > > as previously discussed these atomics are not "C11" they are direct use of gcc > > builtins. please don't incorporate C11 into the title of the patches or commit > > messages since it isn't. > > GCC supports 2 types of built-in atomics, > __atomic_xxx[1] and __sync_xxx [2]. > We need a way to distinguish between them. > We are using "C11" as [1] says they match C++11 memory model. I agree it would be more correct to mention "compiler builtin" as it is not strictly the C11 API. > [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/_005f_005fatomic-Builtins.html > [2] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.1.1/gcc/Atomic-Builtins.html > > > > > please do not integrate a patch that directly uses gcc builtins and extensions > > please maintain abstractions under the rte_ namespace. > > This is just another wrapper which is not required > according to the current requirements we are working with. Yes such wrapper is not required *today*. We have 2 options: 1/ introduce a wrapper now to anticipate any future issue 2/ introduce a wrapper later when required Given we already use these builtins, we should not block this patchset. If it is decided to change the policy, then we'll replace the calls to the compiler builtins in all the codebase. > > specifically this patch substantially increases coupling to a single compiler > > implementation reducing portability. > > > > as previously requested, please establish at a minimum macros in the rte_ > > namespace for this. > > This needs to be discussed at the Techboard. I have CCed the Techboard. > The Techboard meets once in 2 weeks. The details are at [3]. > Next meeting is on 6/30 at 10am CST. Can you please attend and make your case? I agree to discuss options 1 or 2 in a techboard meeting. > Alternately, you can send an email to techboard@dpdk.org > explaining your case and we will debate and make a decision. > > [3] https://core.dpdk.org/techboard/ > > > > > thanks. > > > > > [1] > > > https://www.dpdk.org/blog/2021/03/26/dpdk-adopts-the-c11-memory- > > model/