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 3936BA0503; Thu, 19 May 2022 18:42:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C134F42B70; Thu, 19 May 2022 18:42:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24FF540687 for ; Thu, 19 May 2022 18:42:11 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1652978530; 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=wuakC2L0DnXtd66i7u5h7qHf3TalDAmFQuUA8niLEg4=; b=IoZ22E4Z+97s7B0a4nqxPjYs0scbRdUXcH4vXrj0LkM9toOdU24mQcNa8ed8bwRcTPcIpQ ZvehAW6qla/KTHFrs++deWT8O8pxLISpgZufMcjVy+GEPFNKhFr1WGPpu5YR66jqLfleHF 7bcLq5IjHpZNRN+hYGAq5HGiaMEEBBA= Received: from mail-lj1-f197.google.com (mail-lj1-f197.google.com [209.85.208.197]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-595-cmxFQB_rPL-puGhgVIO4xA-1; Thu, 19 May 2022 12:42:09 -0400 X-MC-Unique: cmxFQB_rPL-puGhgVIO4xA-1 Received: by mail-lj1-f197.google.com with SMTP id y5-20020a2e9785000000b002508326235fso1284037lji.7 for ; Thu, 19 May 2022 09:42:09 -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=wuakC2L0DnXtd66i7u5h7qHf3TalDAmFQuUA8niLEg4=; b=c2BCVPI+IhSgfEj2ynXwsYEWg7j82bWoSr4RlFEuVoPWrgLecu5DkAe/9HZD5JFqDt ip4b4jK2LjNjjqhIu9ws2Jxmvz/lOB81X9lhyvJyzm1/qDysAf0fPpgZQF3vjY91S4y5 pKL1nRaF39knpp4i7bRFoMkuaj3ELai11Bsnjpr6ZwpnLeIu5TIjZ51CRcqPjAaMhe1G wI3TVmSU0lFNivhsqwR3JRJmaDeuSFFmOg15+JnfulFoDPLHwu90AdU+uAeaSv95w3Q6 MiCvV0ulHuewOpXBmrCUfKGW+NtmmZlfXxawhvtwLaS4KSV8wuUMTRckKNY8c2CFxnxO wTSQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5305BQjyJ6ovZ2jj5Bge9g3l+TEbOqJYcq+OWoAay/Pgf8RfRx8/ 9QD47PT1p9NgkAsQzWHkoJUqedx9fjyqLRzaggLq+nGgGZQ01FkWyQJd483ooBeXpG9ZhpEPvz2 Oxz/PU1TPTz7cd/DT9Hg= X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5a19:0:b0:477:c124:41fe with SMTP id q25-20020ac25a19000000b00477c12441femr3840090lfn.553.1652978528008; Thu, 19 May 2022 09:42:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzzi7/BHa3dHYBEO+A1ZjzflH+WuP5Tas3cpzXNImAzVz9ZRfR9r6t1ZE2dezIrZ0b081icZ3SBdhYVtDYwry8= X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5a19:0:b0:477:c124:41fe with SMTP id q25-20020ac25a19000000b00477c12441femr3840073lfn.553.1652978527806; Thu, 19 May 2022 09:42:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220115194102.444140-1-lucp.at.work@gmail.com> <20220225163804.506142-1-lucp.at.work@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: David Marchand Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 18:41:56 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] eal: fix rte_memcpy strict aliasing/alignment bugs To: Luc Pelletier Cc: "Ananyev, Konstantin" , "Richardson, Bruce" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Li, Xiaoyun" , "stable@dpdk.org" , Aaron Conole , Owen Hilyard 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" 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 Hello Luc, On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 9:16 PM Luc Pelletier wrote: > > > Actually, looking again at the history, it fixes: > > > Fixes: f5472703c0bd ("eal: optimize aligned memcpy on x86") > > > > Nop, that's probably even older, could you double check? > > I'll hold on pushing this fix. > > It seems you still haven't received a response. I'll take a stab at this. > > I think it fixes: > > Fixes: 76746eb13f08 ("eal/x86: fix strict aliasing rules") > > However, the ordering of the ifs (from 1 to 8, rather than 8 to 1) > seems to date back to the first commit (af75078fece3). So, I'm not > sure how you want to handle this. My understanding was that the issue was there since "day 1". I'll go with the latter then. Backporting will be for all LTS branches in any case. Thanks! -- David Marchand