From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA8AEA04B6; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 04:15:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC0571D9ED; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 04:15:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga07.intel.com (mga07.intel.com [134.134.136.100]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 589951D9DE for ; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 04:15:27 +0200 (CEST) IronPort-SDR: FbXKrX8sIlc7BJG67FW5R94oX3iEUjSwTs6+s5zc7IaDfF95IIGxFEpEsAacRCmaRb31BstE1d VrDoI3uCtYJA== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9772"; a="230012577" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,369,1596524400"; d="scan'208";a="230012577" X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by orsmga105.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Oct 2020 19:15:25 -0700 IronPort-SDR: jQYMUxdST11emdKOtMHsuEwbNnMRQx7yhlJ2aC39fbxaGKsTgesXbSfZm33uSqN/2qfmcQ7mNz p2c/ytc3h3lQ== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,369,1596524400"; d="scan'208";a="420395167" Received: from irsmsx603.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.146.9]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 12 Oct 2020 19:15:24 -0700 Received: from shsmsx601.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.109.6.141) by irsmsx603.ger.corp.intel.com (163.33.146.9) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1713.5; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 03:15:23 +0100 Received: from shsmsx601.ccr.corp.intel.com ([10.109.6.141]) by SHSMSX601.ccr.corp.intel.com ([10.109.6.141]) with mapi id 15.01.1713.004; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 10:15:21 +0800 From: "Guo, Jia" To: "Richardson, Bruce" , "Power, Ciara" CC: "dev@dpdk.org" , "Xing, Beilei" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 04/18] net/i40e: add checks for max SIMD bitwidth Thread-Index: AQHWlyq/s/PAY45siUqFzHD08Wiz0KmOnvgwgAA2TgCAAU7QsIADHhYAgAGaLmA= Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 02:15:21 +0000 Message-ID: <8eb8323eb42b498abb31567d16d29561@intel.com> References: <20200807155859.63888-1-ciara.power@intel.com> <20200930130415.11211-1-ciara.power@intel.com> <20200930130415.11211-5-ciara.power@intel.com> <67502c03bcf84485b217599dffd32419@intel.com> <20201012093732.GA565@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20201012093732.GA565@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-reaction: no-action dlp-version: 11.5.1.3 x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.36] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 04/18] net/i40e: add checks for max SIMD bitwidth 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: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" > -----Original Message----- > From: Bruce Richardson > Sent: Monday, October 12, 2020 5:38 PM > To: Guo, Jia > Cc: Power, Ciara ; dev@dpdk.org; Xing, Beilei > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 04/18] net/i40e: add checks for max SIM= D > bitwidth >=20 > On Sat, Oct 10, 2020 at 02:07:15AM +0000, Guo, Jia wrote: > > Hi, power > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Power, Ciara > > > Sent: Friday, October 9, 2020 10:03 PM > > > To: Guo, Jia ; dev@dpdk.org > > > Cc: Xing, Beilei > > > Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 04/18] net/i40e: add checks for max SIMD > > > bitwidth > > > > > > Hi Jeff, > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > > >From: Guo, Jia > > > >Sent: Friday 9 October 2020 04:03 > > > >To: Power, Ciara ; dev@dpdk.org > > > >Cc: Xing, Beilei > > > >Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 04/18] net/i40e: add checks for max SIMD > > > >bitwidth > > > > > > > >Hi, power > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: Power, Ciara > > > >> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 9:04 PM > > > >> To: dev@dpdk.org > > > >> Cc: Power, Ciara ; Xing, Beilei > > > >> ; Guo, Jia > > > >> Subject: [PATCH v3 04/18] net/i40e: add checks for max SIMD > > > >> bitwidth > > > >> > > > >> When choosing a vector path to take, an extra condition must be > > > >> satisfied to ensure the max SIMD bitwidth allows for the CPU > > > >> enabled > > > path. > > > >> > > > >> Cc: Beilei Xing > > > >> Cc: Jeff Guo > > > >> > > > >> Signed-off-by: Ciara Power > > > >> --- > > > >> drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx.c | 19 +++++++++++++------ > > > >> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > >> > > > >> diff --git a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx.c > > > >> b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx.c index 60b33d20a1..9b535b52fa > > > >> 100644 > > > >> --- a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx.c > > > >> +++ b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx.c > > > >> @@ -3098,7 +3098,8 @@ static eth_rx_burst_t > > > >> i40e_get_latest_rx_vec(bool > > > >> scatter) { #if defined(RTE_ARCH_X86) && > > > >> defined(CC_AVX2_SUPPORT) -if > > > >> (rte_cpu_get_flag_enabled(RTE_CPUFLAG_AVX2)) > > > >> +if (rte_cpu_get_flag_enabled(RTE_CPUFLAG_AVX2) && > > > >> +rte_get_max_simd_bitwidth() >=3D > > > > > > > >Nitpick: I think if consistent to keep alignment for open > > > >parenthesis in this patch set would be better. Do you think so? > > > > > > > > > > This file doesn't seem to have any if statements indented as you > > > suggest, Some do have a double indent for the continued line as I > > > have done here though. > > > > > > > Sorry, maybe I didn't say clear, what I said is the "CHECK" as below wh= en > use checkpatch.pl to guaranty the patch's format. > > > > CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis > > #733: FILE: drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx.c:3102: > > + if (rte_cpu_get_flag_enabled(RTE_CPUFLAG_AVX2) && > > + rte_get_max_simd_bitwidth() >=3D > > + RTE_MAX_256_SIMD) > > > Did you run checkpatch using the DPDK "checkpatches.sh" script? In that > script there are a list of things to ignore, one of which is > "PARENTHESIS_ALIGNMENT", so that should not be flagged here. It's also > not flagged in patchwork by the CI system. >=20 Ok, seems that parenthesis alignment had been explicit ignored even I would= prefer to make the format to be more consistent. @ power, you could choose= keep it or not if there is a coming new version, that is both fine base on= the rule. =20 > /Bruce