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 76BC1A0524; Fri, 14 May 2021 11:25:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E221440042; Fri, 14 May 2021 11:25:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 778FD40041 for ; Fri, 14 May 2021 11:25:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 593C05C0046; Fri, 14 May 2021 05:25:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 14 May 2021 05:25:39 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm1; bh= 0cTxUggJ+3wonBFf5QS8Y+gw5ppplkgJ/ChfJDpxNsg=; b=ZPPLbIJzSpy57mif C+r1f5r+zYTHHlbQRxiiweMBybCQ3i64m9ZzTWr9OKZlDOhFG9Zh37jwfOgHA7qz CXW4O0hIK/Mq6/wMk2zV63U+S9gCIjgFHxYuDRGk1gVLh9PKbGWU6uEuxDJuZaeD D2eS85MeqA5YjDaqnnKswWffWb10tUP/QloHflbAq+3kX9qkaXXBBilrM54PYq/i nDPf3bVUlU7nNipwiEX0DWVZOQov/JEjNT9MvjHDTeAOhyPZgKEwuU2bu1nKnUC8 +cT/3QKAKhKcKRZkHWpHKbZLERlgIEMGGXPT8nwnwXCkTr9LmPL55VH3h17KGCxD 4sRq1w== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=0cTxUggJ+3wonBFf5QS8Y+gw5ppplkgJ/ChfJDpxN sg=; b=KI1Y+UVYYVmnLqdZxyOpwCrN1+gns4kgI/nILisA6l31kPRP4Ca702quu XyljQfAW6EPCgPr6u8OomQIX4Nx5n4Lr29CLL/9PxHs3CfI03eifscOB+x3q/Xmk dWtlS/ka+rDaouuc5jAIgcxqmNT7PzaB4TVv/4fn38zu9vwRWamEZYDEm8XJcgwy TfQMvi+6ISWYTz502ZWOBvae7PG8JEXwDzmZpTvHiNAmhudXUqlz3NG1q4WnD9Jf TPgbsg4liH/GZv4J6GjaF8GBKQfBn74Cs6MhN6AiLfqDaih0RLAGRY0GHNiSLWZv aBEPhgimB3IS8958yyV1ekdfqlp3g== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrvdehhedgudegfecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhm rghsucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenuc ggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpedugefgvdefudfftdefgeelgffhueekgfffhfeujedtteeutdej ueeiiedvffegheenucfkphepjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecuvehluhhsthgvrh fuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgr lhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Fri, 14 May 2021 05:25:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Maxime Coquelin , Ferruh Yigit , Kevin Traynor , Chenbo Xia , David Marchand Cc: dev , Pei Zhang Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 11:25:35 +0200 Message-ID: <2195769.KCgusFtMK6@thomas> In-Reply-To: <17be3129-4c4b-4be1-75f5-672d36a819ed@intel.com> References: <20210513122826.49910-1-chenbo.xia@intel.com> <17be3129-4c4b-4be1-75f5-672d36a819ed@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] vhost: fix wrong IOTLB initialization X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 14/05/2021 11:09, Ferruh Yigit: > On 5/14/2021 9:18 AM, David Marchand wrote: > > On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 5:04 PM Ferruh Yigit wrote: > >>> If you choose to revert, we can ask Red Hat QA to test RC3 without > >>> further delay. Please let us know when you consider the options. > >>> > >> > >> If the patch is not good to go as it is I suggest reverting it, as far as I know > >> Chenbo will be off for Friday & Monday, so it doesn't leave much time to > >> update/test a new version. > > > > Yes, reverting is the safer, and the author proposed the same. > > > > ack. Chenbo mentioned this is an optimization, so it should be OK to revert. > > > Thomas, > > Can you revert the patch [1] in the main repo, or do you prefer a patch for it? > > [1] > 968bbc7e2e50 ("vhost: avoid IOTLB mempool allocation while IOMMU disabled") It would be better to have a patch with the correct explanation of the issue and few acks if possible.