Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/2] IXGBE vPMD changes for aarch64

["Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China)" <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 18:40
> To: Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China) <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>; Ye
> Xiaolong <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>
> Cc: jerinj@marvell.com; Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)
> <Gavin.Hu@arm.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Honnappa Nagarahalli
> <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>; nd <nd@arm.com>; Kevin Traynor
> <ktraynor@redhat.com>; Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/2] IXGBE vPMD changes for aarch64
> 
> On 8/26/2019 3:52 AM, Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China) wrote:
> > Hi Xiaolong,
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ye Xiaolong <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>
> >> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2019 09:34
> >> To: Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China) <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>
> >> Cc: jerinj@marvell.com; Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)
> >> <Gavin.Hu@arm.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Honnappa Nagarahalli
> >> <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>; nd <nd@arm.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/2] IXGBE vPMD changes for aarch64
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Thanks for the patches, could you also provide the Fixes tag and cc stable?
> >> The patchset looks good to me.
> >
> > Code changes in both patches are not for bug fixing.
> > Patch 1/2 includes fix for code comments. I don't think it deserves a Fixes
> tag or backporting. Can we skip the Fixes tag?
> 
> In 1/2 a memory barrier is removed, it means it was wrong to add it at first
> place and you are fixing it, no?
> 
> 
> Performance improvements are in gray are, but if there is no ABI/API break
> why not take is performance fix and backport and have the performance
> improvement in LTS?
> Also I think taking as much as possible may help to maintain LTS, since it
> reduces the chance of conflict in later commits, LTS is two years and these
> small things can accumulate and make getting important fixes hard by time.
> 
> Is there any specific reason not to backport these patches to LTS releases?
> 
Thanks for your explanation.
Understand that. No objection to backporting.
I'll send out new version.

> 
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Xiaolong
> >>
> >> On 08/13, Ruifeng Wang wrote:
> >>> Couple of changes to IXGBE vector PMD on aarch64 platform.
> >>> An unnecessary memory barrier was identified and removed.
> >>> Also part of processing was replaced with NEON intrinsics.
> >>> Both of the changes will help to improve performance.
> >>>
> >>> Ruifeng Wang (2):
> >>>  net/ixgbe: remove barrier in vPMD for aarch64
> >>>  net/ixgbe: use neon intrinsics to count packet for aarch64
> >>>
> >>> drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec_neon.c | 32
> >>> ++++++++++++-------------
> >>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> 2.17.1
> >>>