From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D3A8A2EFC for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 22:50:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04DB91EA32; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 22:50:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFFD11EA32; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 22:50:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098394.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x9FKmBhA064541; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 16:50:46 -0400 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2vnkhf3n10-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 15 Oct 2019 16:50:46 -0400 Received: from m0098394.ppops.net (m0098394.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x9FKok16087820; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 16:50:46 -0400 Received: from ppma01dal.us.ibm.com (83.d6.3fa9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.63.214.131]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2vnkhf3n0m-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 15 Oct 2019 16:50:46 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma01dal.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma01dal.us.ibm.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x9FKlEBh023745; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 20:50:45 GMT Received: from b03cxnp08027.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03cxnp08027.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.19]) by ppma01dal.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 2vk6f7e5d9-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 15 Oct 2019 20:50:45 +0000 Received: from b03ledav004.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03ledav004.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.235]) by b03cxnp08027.gho.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x9FKohir44564940 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 15 Oct 2019 20:50:43 GMT Received: from b03ledav004.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id A107B78070; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 20:50:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b03ledav004.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CDB67806E; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 20:50:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from davids-mbp.usor.ibm.com (unknown [9.70.84.193]) by b03ledav004.gho.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 20:50:42 +0000 (GMT) To: David Marchand Cc: dev , Stephen Hemminger , dpdk stable , Aaron Conole References: <20191014230745.70489-1-drc@linux.vnet.ibm.com> From: David Christensen Message-ID: Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 13:50:42 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-10-15_08:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1908290000 definitions=main-1910150179 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: fix link status issue on ppc_64 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: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" >> The rte_atomic64_exchange operation for ppc_64 incorrectly linked >> back to a 32 bit generic operation (__atomic_exchange_4) rather than >> the 64 bit generic operation (__atomic_exchange_8). As a result, >> only the link speed was passed to the application, not the link >> state, link duplex, on link autoneg properties. > > Good catch. > The first impact is the link status, but you can imagine applications > calling this, so I would prefer a title like "eal/ppc: fix 64bits > exchange operation". > WDYT ? Sure, I can do that as a v2. > > rte_atomic64_exchange has no unit test. > This kind of problem could (should?) have been caught in unit tests. > Maybe something to add later. > I was surprised too. I'll look at adding a change to the rte_atomic.c test application. Dave