From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CEEA2BE1 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 13:13:09 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga005.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.41]) by fmsmga105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 13 Dec 2018 04:13:08 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,348,1539673200"; d="scan'208";a="283278544" Received: from dhunt5-mobl2.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.221.66]) ([10.237.221.66]) by orsmga005.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 13 Dec 2018 04:13:07 -0800 To: "Burakov, Anatoly" , dev@dpdk.org Cc: lei.a.yao@intel.com References: <20181122170220.55482-1-david.hunt@intel.com> <20181122170220.55482-3-david.hunt@intel.com> <9f0813fc-309f-33bf-1b74-ecb89392634f@intel.com> From: "Hunt, David" Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 12:13:07 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <9f0813fc-309f-33bf-1b74-ecb89392634f@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 2/4] examples/power: remove mask functions 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: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 12:13:10 -0000 Hi Anatoly, On 10/12/2018 12:30 PM, Burakov, Anatoly wrote: > On 22-Nov-18 5:02 PM, David Hunt wrote: >> since we're moving to allowing greater than 64 cores, the mask functions >> that use uint64_t to perform functions on a masked set of cores are no >> longer feasable, so removing them. > > Perhaps "needed" is a better word, rather than "feasible" :) Yes, "needed" is probably better. :) > > Please correct me if i'm wrong, but as of this patch, some of the > functionality is left in half-working state, and this patch should > really be merged with patch 3? > This patch removes all the mask functions, including the CLI option to call them, so is in a fully working state. I think it should be fine as a standalone patch in the series. Thanks, Dave.