From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <anatoly.burakov@intel.com> Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BBAD5F1F for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 13:30:47 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga006.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.51]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 Dec 2018 04:30:46 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,338,1539673200"; d="scan'208";a="99506555" Received: from aburakov-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.93]) ([10.237.220.93]) by orsmga006.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 10 Dec 2018 04:30:45 -0800 To: David Hunt <david.hunt@intel.com>, dev@dpdk.org Cc: lei.a.yao@intel.com References: <20181122170220.55482-1-david.hunt@intel.com> <20181122170220.55482-3-david.hunt@intel.com> From: "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com> Message-ID: <9f0813fc-309f-33bf-1b74-ecb89392634f@intel.com> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 12:30:44 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20181122170220.55482-3-david.hunt@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 2/4] examples/power: remove mask functions X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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> X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 12:30:48 -0000 On 22-Nov-18 5:02 PM, David Hunt wrote: > since we're moving to allowing greater than 64 cores, the mask functions > that use uint64_t to perform functions on a masked set of cores are no > longer feasable, so removing them. Perhaps "needed" is a better word, rather than "feasible" :) Please correct me if i'm wrong, but as of this patch, some of the functionality is left in half-working state, and this patch should really be merged with patch 3? -- Thanks, Anatoly