From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67966A0471 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 15:37:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC2392C18; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 15:36:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.19]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFDC92BF4 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 15:36:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC03C4F4; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 09:36:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 16 Jul 2019 09:36:57 -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=mesmtp; bh=nkTHAa8h88oYM7FXP47dC5SkxhpfGS5c7Hz/uZtyatE=; b=efL6CnEv6pbe Nv/toa93huX+ZqL4r0kH88p0QW5VVP4zQdRQOggdpDGgfNziGrC/5zcZj8sc10rP iFH2DLR5MImTmC3mIxcY8KspVwyYIP9Lnv2W/a5TPEL04vVuMYmprrCtO8g00xv7 8H/I/L+2V30ahDGMXwmNBjq2bICdgfQ= 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=fm3; bh=nkTHAa8h88oYM7FXP47dC5SkxhpfGS5c7Hz/uZtya tE=; b=un6v2kyotS0Eomr694kIT70n00HlfO9375wcg4YfpC2hRMSkNbUmw0R6O qmyvfkA1qSq/WfW8IoRXv6PpwrMflm1txuP6Zsraj39GUkGns2drzzTHRNRgu1nP X2V/ymg8G2FcXJP3/SCcJAIUadD7SFmqWBoigC92jmaIJvioY98OdDdVD7xF9Go2 ohpxe74xodlCzHOaPHFMRP783dpkUXT6U8tniYzG/VGvBDX8rfo3Ic/9lzTzyNbH Fyi7OsnNEvUBZ4eWJJoxcJ9kaMat6uqnHKwAxWxU/SAWGYiMCvIbhXtTPrHCLLx4 HJ9wHDdBukQyfp6t4W0Wz1gFGm6hw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduvddriedtgdejtdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucfkph epjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhho mhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd 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 id 5DB86380086; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 09:36:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Ferruh Yigit , Hemant Agrawal Cc: dev@dpdk.org Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 15:36:53 +0200 Message-ID: <2854650.ZaSKyfgELu@xps> In-Reply-To: <38a8dc70-51f2-ad22-c211-953beaadcb99@intel.com> References: <20190627093343.5171-2-hemant.agrawal@nxp.com> <2215079.QxrPnuoOdN@xps> <38a8dc70-51f2-ad22-c211-953beaadcb99@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/5] FSLMC bus enchancements 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: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 16/07/2019 13:40, Ferruh Yigit: > On 7/15/2019 10:53 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 15/07/2019 10:44, Hemant Agrawal: > >> Nipun Gupta (1): > >> bus/fslmc: use cinh read for eqcr ci on ls1088 platform > >> > >> Sachin Saxena (1): > >> mempool/dpaa2: vfio dmamap for user allocated memory > >> > >> Shreyansh Jain (3): > >> bus/fslmc: support device iteration > >> bus/fslmc: enhance error handling for dev parsing > >> bus/fslmc: dynamic iommu mode detection > > > > I had the following comments on v1: > > The title should start with a verb. > > VFIO and DMA should be uppercase. > > I tried to fix it. > > > > Applied, thanks > > Getting build error with "ppc_64-power8-linuxapp-gcc" target [1], related to the > wrong format specifier. Not sure it is only ppc one. It's so disappointing. I don't know how many times I tried to explain the issue with %lx. Should we just forbid %lx and %llx usage?