From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from wes1-so1.wedos.net (wes1-so1.wedos.net [46.28.106.15]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3764C9204 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 17:11:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (dynamic-109-81-211-160.ipv4.broadband.iol.cz [109.81.211.160]) by wes1-so1.wedos.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3nnTCG5CjYzq3; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 17:11:06 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: BlackBerry Email (10.3.2.2639) Message-ID: <20151030161106.4657232.16920.465@rehivetech.com> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 17:11:06 +0100 From: Jan Viktorin In-Reply-To: <5633798B.2050708@intel.com> References: <1446212826-19425-7-git-send-email-david.hunt@intel.com> <5633798B.2050708@intel.com> To: "Hunt, David" Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 6/6] test: add checks for cpu flags on armv8 X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 16:11:07 -0000 Hmm, I see. It's good to fix this in the generated e-mails between format-p= atch and send-email calls. I always review those to be sure they meet my ex= pectations ;). Anyway, it is not clear, what has changed in the v3. Just the rte_cycles? Y= ou should explain that at least in the 0000 patch. Better to keep some hist= ory in each single commit (are there any rules in dpdk for this? Just look = how they do in kernel). I'll test the patchset in qemu anyway... so will probably send tested-by. I've put this conversation to mailing list as I cannot see any reason why i= t is not CC'd there... Jan=C2=A0Viktorin RehiveTech Sent=C2=A0from=C2=A0a=C2=A0mobile=C2=A0device =C2=A0 P=C5=AFvodn=C3=AD zpr=C3=A1va =C2=A0 Od: Hunt, David Odesl=C3=A1no: p=C3=A1tek, 30. =C5=99=C3=ADjna 2015 15:07 Komu: Jan Viktorin P=C5=99edm=C4=9Bt: Fwd: [PATCH v3 6/6] test: add checks for cpu flags on ar= mv8 Jan, I had gone to the trouble of adding a "Reviewed-by" line in all the=20 commit messages for each patch in the patch set, as well as addressing=20 the comment about the armv8 files being in the arm dir. However, the 'git format-patch' seems to have stripped out the "Reviewed-by" line for some reason. If you are happy with the latest patch set, could you reply and maybe=20 say something like "series Reviewed-by..."? Thanks for your help in this. Regards, Dave. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [PATCH v3 6/6] test: add checks for cpu flags on armv8 Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:47:06 +0000 From: David Hunt To: david.hunt@intel.com Signed-off-by: David Hunt --- app/test/test_cpuflags.c | 13 +++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/app/test/test_cpuflags.c b/app/test/test_cpuflags.c index 557458f..1689048 100644 --- a/app/test/test_cpuflags.c +++ b/app/test/test_cpuflags.c @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -/*- +/* * BSD LICENSE * * Copyright(c) 2010-2014 Intel Corporation. All rights reserved. @@ -115,9 +115,18 @@ test_cpuflags(void) CHECK_FOR_FLAG(RTE_CPUFLAG_ICACHE_SNOOP); #endif -#if defined(RTE_ARCH_ARM) +#if defined(RTE_ARCH_ARM) || defined(RTE_ARCH_ARM64) + printf("Checking for Floating Point:\t\t"); + CHECK_FOR_FLAG(RTE_CPUFLAG_FPA); + printf("Check for NEON:\t\t"); CHECK_FOR_FLAG(RTE_CPUFLAG_NEON); + + printf("Checking for ARM32 mode:\t\t"); + CHECK_FOR_FLAG(RTE_CPUFLAG_AARCH32); + + printf("Checking for ARM64 mode:\t\t"); + CHECK_FOR_FLAG(RTE_CPUFLAG_AARCH64); #endif #if defined(RTE_ARCH_X86_64) || defined(RTE_ARCH_I686) --=20 1.9.1