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 804A3A0562 for ; Mon, 3 May 2021 16:29:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FA4040F35; Mon, 3 May 2021 16:29:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-wr1-f41.google.com (mail-wr1-f41.google.com [209.85.221.41]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB26E40150 for ; Mon, 3 May 2021 16:28:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wr1-f41.google.com with SMTP id x7so5795610wrw.10 for ; Mon, 03 May 2021 07:28:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind.com; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=JVpy7Vhmoxg1PpWe1bEiuVKEt6SWusynGX17itJpttY=; b=LzzlJu3ugnTStioLROs3SdSOS9YYDzX0U5FvxKSCPy59arU3JuEschulAlJfJVMzhz rJhbkWHqBf1xE6RwlD/ipAAwDlgS4KJOZMFyMjXz2f7Q+xXLGJl8G1kgCbYn3+IgPOge 2KORHBbCo60SWZRf1VDG9xipB4u3odx/l6sICdgEW9RdctLP2OLwBZbNxOr6tRAF9nNy fc7SkcrlWUuWudfi9d94eYqxoizHsYTdjxo/6iPfCUQWxlMxmLMgspuV8l0jEtoZ5O/f isqn1sUmoLtQXd/onqw6ZSYyrjVq/CT5JameXmsKlgiyn0QyeZtMLfLzONXO9d4wUubw tA4A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=JVpy7Vhmoxg1PpWe1bEiuVKEt6SWusynGX17itJpttY=; b=jQjPQG3ukdCdYwVMVo/4DraCLosMLzJI5phMtd8p30/Dz6+xkQzdcl1hwxyZbEBNqw +IpRQxks33v3kjTZstSMjtj8IEJku4wGO0If00uXX+JL4UF0pcx406ieDDtZAAAPsqtp xKJqu4MAK2HLD9S9GfM9uwDjpgG3O2nGGMcNQk+tZbAAbYOBJwnGPbeiYrFZSaaK+4/b +sNoTWhSzBUMjiUHo9oDk6OlkoGEP4MXIyUQ/mSw3UaKK1TqLdzRsrEIhTZcrOZ3ZuWp 22PwOOFWioWICTeNt0VEzJjFvYFnGW7hi3a7unvWc53a5ZN0LzY8/bOhfGpSG/xtCaEV 6/XA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53225VzUe0M9OeDnZpnoeLDCw57oUPiClMSHg+a9nRaelgD0r3e7 pkR0JcxmMi622eSG1NejTGjAGQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzHXycjyJTaXmSJ0WSRA881iLliKT4dxUl0Jw5LXd9N2wWxFw8TJndmE5WkFUa/SPmFpdg25w== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4c41:: with SMTP id n1mr5082527wrt.379.1620052138470; Mon, 03 May 2021 07:28:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 6wind.com ([2a01:e0a:5ac:6460:c065:401d:87eb:9b25]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u2sm21201595wmc.22.2021.05.03.07.28.57 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 03 May 2021 07:28:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 3 May 2021 16:28:57 +0200 From: Olivier Matz To: David Marchand Cc: Luca Boccassi , Christian Ehrhardt , dev , dpdk stable , Kevin Traynor , Thomas Monjalon , Stanislaw Kardach Message-ID: <20210503142857.GB1726@platinum> References: <20210412082901.652736-1-kda@semihalf.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/3] add lock-free stack support discovery X-BeenThere: stable@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: patches for DPDK stable branches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: stable-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "stable" On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 04:21:25PM +0200, David Marchand wrote: > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 10:29 AM Stanislaw Kardach wrote: > > > > The lock-free stack implementation (RTE_STACK_F_LF) is supported only on a > > subset of platforms, namely x86_64 and arm64. Platforms supporting 128b atomics > > have to opt-in to a generic or C11 implementations. All other platforms use a > > stubbed implementation for push/pop operations which are basically NOPs. > > However rte_stack_create() will not fail and application can proceed assuming > > it has a working lock-free stack. > > > > This means that among other things the stack_lf fast and perf tests will fail > > as if implementation is wrong (which one can argue is). Therefore this patchset > > tries to give user a way to check whether a lock_free is supported or not both > > at compile time (build flag) and at runtime (ENOTSUP errno in rte_stack_create). > > > > I have added cc to stable@dpdk.org because check-git-log.sh suggested it. I'm > > not sure if adding a binary compatible change to API is worth stable@dpdk.org. > > > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org > > The issue was hit while porting to a new architecture. > The feature is broken in existing stable releases and it won't get > fixed by this change. > > I'd rather not backport it. > > Opinions? Agreed.