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 37D2BA0C41; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 17:12:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDA3341171; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 17:12:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BDE341164 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 17:12:31 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1634656350; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=k76OFEBtKGlcElFq9qnZ94lIB1sQJPkV+XTtyeBpQ5A=; b=H3EPoQM164h5UJ+8uJS6c5Doo8udYoJjyXKnrUiJSxVr6qPwPIXSHcM1M2MJQLV9tpFB6n De3Y+CPIJBU28l28aIWfqf1zP0StMHUWS/fw5Csg83TZht8/QOyGok3oNERm8Q6vckLyLI YoeonTSbucVliE+Ddq42PSLdP42hZlw= Received: from mail-lj1-f199.google.com (mail-lj1-f199.google.com [209.85.208.199]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-532-aPqmLpAHMTS9DLbBMAQlTA-1; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 11:12:29 -0400 X-MC-Unique: aPqmLpAHMTS9DLbBMAQlTA-1 Received: by mail-lj1-f199.google.com with SMTP id 132-20020a2e058a000000b00210aeaca823so1014318ljf.10 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 08:12:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=k76OFEBtKGlcElFq9qnZ94lIB1sQJPkV+XTtyeBpQ5A=; b=qiFgdFc1AKLZZXKOFB+bDxC2iuXJ8XR1k0+KQrUZahvbmAApFL4yJNxLQSORLSUhW8 DDRuecm12oCACLEjvZ7/VGSbL9TqjYYBfkDXUkA3bLVwQddM11pSXm/N6ja6PbuT6ogs SCcohMxv7+jSSYNomJh68eN4pEdnqa+ernk1AvnP9jLhfD32giXiXGh7zQ78PcMfnsiV LC551awBVQdoZUeNMYFtsSF8JavF1ALr4+Fb4uo4lCxJ0Tu2wPbM8hTRitsFH5FCTzIo Wx4Hpnz/SXT+odGo0W2XZPjsDrIVIC3a5ewyhWLqikLIvGOkSIpwTDS+aaoPY1FMgKjf ea1Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532sKKGpNb8akInO6AUPL716Ioesauy6XZArGCpy2+qGOEjpk/2a dIZjSsVejKeRfiovJLZgs97ZTrk/BHaWPWrJAYkn6kiAuJpQv4Pu2lRrzYWKQo+ngy4YWF8lpw9 EArAE25FWQQKAQVHTzsg= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:a54a:: with SMTP id e10mr7064313ljn.159.1634656347895; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 08:12:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwb9k/v5QLhGuEDET0JsFXeUupapahOPFb6sxbHhDTPQ0xi7Jod4R0XzcHoDaJ9oIrrJE7HVot9D9kRJD8BvvY= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:a54a:: with SMTP id e10mr7064290ljn.159.1634656347699; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 08:12:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210823054952.15001-1-joyce.kong@arm.com> <20211013185407.2841183-1-dharmik.thakkar@arm.com> <20211013185407.2841183-9-dharmik.thakkar@arm.com> In-Reply-To: From: David Marchand Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2021 17:12:16 +0200 Message-ID: To: Dharmik Thakkar Cc: Chas Williams , "Min Hu (Connor)" , Konstantin Ananyev , Radu Nicolau , Akhil Goyal , Declan Doherty , Sunil Kumar Kori , Pavan Nikhilesh , Bruce Richardson , David Hunt , Anatoly Burakov , Byron Marohn , Yipeng Wang , Maxime Coquelin , Chenbo Xia , dev , nd , Honnappa Nagarahalli , Ruifeng Wang , Joyce Kong Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=dmarchan@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 8/8] examples: remove unnecessary include of atomic 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" Hello Dharmik, On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 1:30 AM Dharmik Thakkar wrote: > I am seeing the following CI failures on this series: > a) 1.3% nic_single_core_perf degradation with Mellanox ConnectX-4 Lx 40000 Mbps. > b) dpdk_unit_test failure with RHEL 7 VM due to red_autotest failure. > > These issues are not related to the patch series since the patches are only targeted towards examples dir. > Another recently upstreamed patch series [1] also reported a similar CI failure. > Thus, this looks like a common CI issue. I agree those reports can be ignored. Thanks for checking. -- David Marchand