From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga12.intel.com (mga12.intel.com [192.55.52.136]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 363B52BE1 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 13:14:18 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by fmsmga106.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 13 Dec 2018 04:14:17 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,349,1539673200"; d="scan'208";a="259167607" Received: from aburakov-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.93]) ([10.237.220.93]) by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 13 Dec 2018 04:14:15 -0800 To: "Hunt, David" , 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: "Burakov, Anatoly" Message-ID: <0b797033-b819-f7b4-6df5-1810eadcfb88@intel.com> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 12:14:15 +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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 12:14:18 -0000 On 13-Dec-18 12:13 PM, Hunt, David wrote: > 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. Yep, OK. (provided you fix the commit message...) Reviewed-by: Anatoly Burakov > > > Thanks, > Dave. > > -- Thanks, Anatoly