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 A1ACEA0503 for ; Thu, 19 May 2022 18:42:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ACED40223; Thu, 19 May 2022 18:42:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FCA240223 for ; Thu, 19 May 2022 18:42:10 +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-54-DYOpBZlTMoeMjspx1RziBg-1; Thu, 19 May 2022 12:42:09 -0400 X-MC-Unique: DYOpBZlTMoeMjspx1RziBg-1 Received: by mail-lj1-f197.google.com with SMTP id m2-20020a2eb6c2000000b00253d5a95abfso511850ljo.3 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=T+AppL3nRlHoJHjrGYe/pxh6IH5zy+4jZ0M4O2quDs3agKjLg2TiJGrrfqV4S7nnve CoU/4sOwsW7O0WHKeCHf231XT3W7ywsVbC55fmABP8Ej7fyvSddDrWPXfp25ac4Ms1lV NujKbFnCz1o+TJTE5ILNbPTzu+4kZXmgUyLMQ9oVSLWhnjLGTwnDJ/Wpmq+8yXzOKTE8 Q4050K9V2A8IO9qFzEzoIKxkJgOSmeGA0RCVWF054EuuwSEa26zNra09VW/9V62mpOmk gqlft22XyFcmcOZkCCmvQF5Ap4ISrlbmfhNPaUpbv+5UPszHUxjGE5Q3PrA+DoIC1W0a eVOA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5318Dfx5yR9644iDDXDxW94a1IU1mSoVERoX92/Mx+JZo5PWHr5I aXvu3/vYhYz/yqxv31ocKofki8BQ3LFvWXiEuAnn+N7dgwOJytnQ9CXEpil9N+GD4cohai/IqQj gBN8pJP9+lEKYHMrxaYucR6w= X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5a19:0:b0:477:c124:41fe with SMTP id q25-20020ac25a19000000b00477c12441femr3840086lfn.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: 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 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