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 D60F6A0C4D; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 13:32:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9645340E03; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 13:32:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp-relay-internal-0.canonical.com (smtp-relay-internal-0.canonical.com [185.125.188.122]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B06540151 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 13:32:39 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-ot1-f69.google.com (mail-ot1-f69.google.com [209.85.210.69]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-relay-internal-0.canonical.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2844B40023 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 12:32:39 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=canonical.com; s=20210705; t=1636374759; bh=0T7sP3HqtWgq+DjTSO+oUkLQOt4WatySwttWODkbXe0=; h=MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject:To:Cc:Content-Type; b=er+rFouicq7bnsYPFmksbXoNZ/0iwHSWmv3wlXe14FfHAEnYpGVJ1ytVRZIYtx6sM BT819F1pbLsNfO5raxdHCL+wiHpDq371E46+FCkORXO6R3K5uy7ccjp79KzVmCuNFK 1X4hln1u6Q9FtCncU9LuCl8cwLepq6r9cyqeye00gpXBInxsITuqf0ThMxM1sZIMGR viU8Ztu7yZ3GaGIJDDftLSavcUBdqX2SpA6rU7hNDXFLWmNJkYcfSH+PNJS4OrqIHE RojoN3s45df+FZe+Fc0gV9JbXLRT/n8pwZr8lOHvKIATCeIvNCvfsqTRQim5SbQvbs NwavTEbwvmwpg== Received: by mail-ot1-f69.google.com with SMTP id s38-20020a05683043a600b0055a6f3f8c26so8872336otv.21 for ; Mon, 08 Nov 2021 04:32:39 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=0T7sP3HqtWgq+DjTSO+oUkLQOt4WatySwttWODkbXe0=; b=JkjMJXEmxfTIZgwhXL62OafsAWG9dkns76dcGX+S5eS3JBQF810d4+ARzjSuzytmH3 41tOMYA4a3b/dzn9MCTFsqQKP+bKaJcgZsQJ7Thratk6oLvMPoYkbO9DYSM2bYrCNfrH AercBnMDPFQwr4yLCqHVlcNz57Kxpg6uvI2YYyMm1QsAz14l8d3eL3bcYdminB5WaVgJ 7l6i3P+D1qXd8yuVhrtYupYh1vVGQHzDBwMkGTUnYlWJO9DmdwEMDw4P8TKLuti+j4Bi 56GLge0bxlriH0hBvEKtbacpNLYp4pIPqABOBYjLgH8rdin64JDMY8vlunJEZUPi40ra 7v0g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532dVLylf+O0KZSDLXpsqnG7qIAbhrlcR/I1D/YUsFeP1w00dhiJ MyzJdgNDCuMHQoZYTpHPLblbAc0XwI0aJkPrbq2FxJk20qE0n23OfKf3wLeY9yjNoLHPMv8w/eA iAwVKHkxw1/i3wSzHHhGyeC2jz8hiuZ4Acyoh X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:189a:: with SMTP id bi26mr7844219oib.48.1636374757282; Mon, 08 Nov 2021 04:32:37 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwXsknpZz2tr2CLxTj9QxuK4gUMp3PBEgc/5K6Blvd9pQsMPLKdNyxNDZRnKMYE0tcrHJJHNa75oD1ajnW5C40= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:189a:: with SMTP id bi26mr7844191oib.48.1636374757025; Mon, 08 Nov 2021 04:32:37 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Christian Ehrhardt Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2021 13:32:10 +0100 Message-ID: To: Jan Viktorin , Ruifeng Wang , dev Cc: Luca Boccassi Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: [dpdk-dev] Probing the expected state/support of DPDK@armhf 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" Hi, I wanted to ask about the current state of DPDK@armhf (not arm64, that seems fine AFAICS). Since there are too many arms today, I mean armhf as in [0]. What I see when building DPDK 21.11 is 2973 ../config/meson.build:364:1: ERROR: Problem encountered: Number of CPU cores not specified. Right now this seems to be broken the same everywhere - Suse [1], fedora [2], Debian/Ubuntu [3] I'm not asking for a fix for this particular issue (although I guess people would be happy), but more about the general state of DPDK@armhf. Debian and Ubuntu used to build it on armhf as well, but over the recent years I feel (no hard data) that usage there was next to none. OTOH Thomas said that recently people cared about armv7 [4] My suggestion would be to disable the build on armhf in Debian/Ubuntu (+elsewhere?) until it reaches a more stable phase and real use-cases. But maybe I missed some use-cases, therefore I wanted to reach out to the mailing list to probe for more opinions on this. Thanks for your thoughts on this in advance! P.S. If it is meant to work and be supported, then we will need a fix for that [0]: https://wiki.debian.org/ArmHardFloatPort [1]: https://build.opensuse.org/public/build/home:bluca:dpdk/openSUSE_Factory_ARM/armv7l/dpdk/_log [2]: https://build.opensuse.org/public/build/home:bluca:dpdk/Fedora_35/armv7l/dpdk/_log [3]: https://launchpadlibrarian.net/567810935/buildlog_ubuntu-jammy-armhf.dpdk_21.11~rc1-1u~ppa1_BUILDING.txt.gz [4]: https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20210610111839.7481-1-s.chandrakant@globaledgesoft.com/ -- Christian Ehrhardt Staff Engineer, Ubuntu Server Canonical Ltd