From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-f180.google.com (mail-wr0-f180.google.com [209.85.128.180]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 646CB72FA for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 19:40:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wr0-f180.google.com with SMTP id d19-v6so7043992wre.1 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 10:40:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=arista.com; s=googlenew; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=lFNIu2yaeWhCSmqoqsJkOFlL8Qq+SuxPHBN9faISt1U=; b=YK7PMymo4JovvI+X63Rn3uopp+lpMZAu1z84WibZRs2v2pjNITfgZUWgfntnmsLMSD CE/CB4DTk/hc0Qdl8c7aFCUo5jiPbzFEajrQJ+j3J/qGATglgOK1fnA2SeURoZD/bR2C 3YWW+XfA2+Vf+bIbbOu+LZXu56BpwXYR+qsG/n6Zx3Z1no0yU0O7+Lnl8aWcACf49TbO gxk0sMjaVMS3eD4NMYhfVsiLVYVLH/7IBpcc4ULxkC2Zqo2VpN3xTlZ3cyY3AF13N1b6 puquZgjXDhPkNNZWxwFUzRNbhmRJ7z+OfPf/Sz8Y+LDuP2+btgdKkszCoxb4Ta0Kpm99 LjkQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=lFNIu2yaeWhCSmqoqsJkOFlL8Qq+SuxPHBN9faISt1U=; b=GKhlfYIQ1rUYpv2CU+f5xnscFqWIQX94M1uEWbwFnmhKPx7i750Y7QZu/UmkeV7ito eykVGHd0j+HbNsExKPvsl/Jmg16N+pzxmORvBWVyU0VppKM8Fcf6hDOETraifrm1c0E5 rpMi0WFus9b8UAee6O9s3abqUf8Tyll4pVAg3XSAhFF5mXEQ1dBgD+lpxVqjCroTpLWC niC3WWW8JmNE4DwuYv6kyPRMvg+5OhEO+NxOy94XLnAzlwNfmyFeMrtCKWfEzdfQHBU4 lyXG9SawuFNqVQrd0ZsMzAv3jzvLOxLi6fWfPlNBYnfGKQc3FQpPbpgaUoBOLL0O0fZ1 pIIw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tBGC5/eb9iCwT8G0orroqHTlr3c/KDvIh/KhD9BxRI5ojqa8R5v JAfVtc3wPkTbTBkDRUumaH3jF3sEpY7aAI1ErM5hOw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4/4a51We6ZtV70qzpP4s3JjIDilSENb/UCmreFMm9iB8T2qQUWXehGbAFbweUUx3QpJS08HRkMv59c/fgXZbmA= X-Received: by 2002:adf:e147:: with SMTP id f7-v6mr2213855wri.172.1524073237850; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 10:40:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.185.90 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 10:40:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <7d058c65-b14e-037a-e08c-199183d7c1a4@cisco.com> References: <9315b1fd275c48508640f4553be62d0b@XCH-RCD-016.cisco.com> <20180417134624.515c6848@xeon-e3> <7d058c65-b14e-037a-e08c-199183d7c1a4@cisco.com> From: Jim Murphy Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 10:40:37 -0700 Message-ID: To: Roger B Melton Cc: Stephen Hemminger , "David Harton (dharton)" , "dev@dpdk.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Retire x86 32 bit? 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 17:40:38 -0000 Same for our case. On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Roger B Melton wrote: > On 4/17/18 4:46 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > >> On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 13:01:14 -0700 >> Jim Murphy wrote: >> >> Still used in certain memory constrained environments. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 11:39 AM, David Harton (dharton) < >>> dharton@cisco.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> It is used and tested in production and non-production environments. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Dave >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: dev On Behalf Of Stephen Hemminger >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 2:31 PM >>>>> To: dev@dpdk.org >>>>> Subject: [dpdk-dev] Retire x86 32 bit? >>>>> >>>>> I wonder if x86 32 bit is still useful? >>>>> Many distributions no longer support it, and not sure if it is tested >>>>> througly by anyone. >>>>> >>>>> Maybe time to deprecate it (gradually)? >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Pure 32 bit, or x86-64 instructions and registers used in 32 bit mode >> (which can be faster). >> . >> >> > Pure 32bit in our case. We do not use x32 ABI. > > -Roger > > >