From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <stable-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124])
	by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEEFAA00C4
	for <public@inbox.dpdk.org>; Fri, 13 May 2022 21:16:09 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D38254114F;
	Fri, 13 May 2022 21:16:09 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mail-pl1-f174.google.com (mail-pl1-f174.google.com
 [209.85.214.174])
 by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 973D040DDE;
 Fri, 13 May 2022 21:16:07 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-pl1-f174.google.com with SMTP id j14so8845915plx.3;
 Fri, 13 May 2022 12:16:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112;
 h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
 :cc; bh=AXNest/XprBKNCenz5RhRvnayTVhLkmGElDoRQvO5k8=;
 b=bNecFeVXrTlbe6FHNPgUOZMJEN0Y1OMyxuXdZ4MH1vZBaXdUmW8krKKMHXN0gwgD44
 1Os7lYeHEN2GnNzX+j2oYM3MgNbKwcKggknGJvhI4ycaZCzMLbQxPUUDzPh+tgSVQDOd
 94KlIL3UgqSsJCJMPN+T+/ii8mF9T11cKL/v+x9snkxssHYBD+fdjzEdwnc63X4TSww5
 ge4vxpder0gC+i7hhj+1pFc/09CSM1ATa77vyA8gqs69UbTD7WSFdgBkffcBPun7Weez
 +EYWENKp5q/GAV3uabSeFYz/oQm+TuGeirmpJVV2RcT3YSbCI5z+6OtFinzw+PtinLzG
 HcCQ==
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=AXNest/XprBKNCenz5RhRvnayTVhLkmGElDoRQvO5k8=;
 b=mNakj+ZKIn7Vjw70hwehCh2JjdCdDZkcOqGELVQHtxbuQ3grb98rNqdFyaFlXNrS+o
 nStKWWuc/bYeGwL2ZQ7urgz1S2I4ryMua+SFavrPmpF4S2svgu/i/4FInyOsd29lxwIF
 7haRZNwD26DPcCSu90acvzbTBplbCpBUvlOP0cPW1OYRD+RTNrQ0rNqGyEfXoGdfOLle
 YYsBQqItyd4MI2euu5mIjdPStQ4ulPf9N4cC1v1t8DVuHV1qmw9YrTxC3iulC89fUeik
 mL7fm8lxTQvQQCUCuyx1KS4VzBe1XOtPyP88d31yoqYqvvlsn2Rn/sYSiI/XNVq1vX92
 tMig==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532JhYFBrSUD4RD8Dxq6YXCqShiHNBUbFIBFBNXPiylXV9UWwQvA
 sOeirQglgXUPZDeYdxKrpSW3St3PFR1XQTfXKQY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwxQq/6hHgGq8DgnGjMa2SVf7lj/riGNqRKQlbHWkFOcrShPbXK4hQxVhpUXNJlTfVUvpqbegAIfjG3Cg/dc9E=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:7d89:b0:15e:e999:6b88 with SMTP id
 a9-20020a1709027d8900b0015ee9996b88mr6234826plm.98.1652469366710; Fri, 13 May
 2022 12:16:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220115194102.444140-1-lucp.at.work@gmail.com>
 <20220225163804.506142-1-lucp.at.work@gmail.com>
 <DM6PR11MB449118A6002204BEA83D1B7A9A0B9@DM6PR11MB4491.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAJFAV8yxK-qqQtNLrNFqyo1T+6qTSGfotSGufgR1SOY1muMzdg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJFAV8zRAGR4L80xLjcmYXFi5nhTn8ioSkF-DZsnh1+ya-tzAg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJFAV8zeOUm7ZC7nJ-fzqF19MwSqkQ+nKy9+niRW+QM3Zv8Ktg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJFAV8zeOUm7ZC7nJ-fzqF19MwSqkQ+nKy9+niRW+QM3Zv8Ktg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Luc Pelletier <lucp.at.work@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 15:15:55 -0400
Message-ID: <CAFeRdtBGgU_ppKzP3LfY4hvAN3isB3JtQRA8VmY5jWMn-kms0g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] eal: fix rte_memcpy strict aliasing/alignment bugs
To: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>
Cc: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>, 
 "Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
 "Li, Xiaoyun" <xiaoyun.li@intel.com>, "stable@dpdk.org" <stable@dpdk.org>, 
 Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com>, Owen Hilyard <ohilyard@iol.unh.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-BeenThere: stable@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches for DPDK stable branches <stable.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/stable>,
 <mailto:stable-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/stable/>
List-Post: <mailto:stable@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stable-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/stable>,
 <mailto:stable-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: stable-bounces@dpdk.org

Hi David,

> > 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.

Thanks.