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 E845DA04B1; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 10:28:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F142A9A0; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 10:28:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72C49A932 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 10:28:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDC3F5C016D; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 04:28:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 05 Nov 2020 04:28:44 -0500 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=fm2; bh= wp2U+81YPoMUT6LugM3kIxtqYQYSXym0722Wmo9gedY=; b=cWnl3ESrz8eTfKAd bKJ+ZM7UKueOXFe0HrhsQ52oY68xVXZUMGQrymJN8Py0qlrauD1NRPwXZaB20F+f 6ARIHoeWa59FU4RrjEcEy4uQqaqAi7GuX6iFAwo+9T10+BeAakrqo2C0Vpb6SDDV 39cnSdIFtdtbb8WkBi7kAYG5w/xoXz0OT3XDCdattDIyb7io9H0K8rZ9DvQzOYer HqWRS715fQtSjtSAKMp54YgFW2Dii+4dgt3HDx3kgJwE9E9fxCXT52GTZ2h/QN8D uiw3Ym6UwY2dAUoWpYhD9wcEQTJwNGjVKKXwB/wDizMx5E7YSz+FZYQz/Th4yEwi +vX3mA== 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=fm1; bh=wp2U+81YPoMUT6LugM3kIxtqYQYSXym0722Wmo9ge dY=; b=P0dLSXUW1hDc6aFkPSq9iQWE8Oeb8tDSJfSPdK1MY+H4phtiyQ3BaMbWc BHhH7NOYYV/SRtGvEKr1G88NtWI0ce0QzTwVI13v7obPKAkXA110ZwIriYLQVCwA qjMuXDsViMmES7voCACq9G5tHAN6mP3qe1L5VF3efy8LeoPaUICwzgS+o2HGU2VZ ByBM5PpYg7ihW9dMtpsQ/59oo93OFNVPSdsppL+Sh27FyFWhv7zTRfXO8DiWv5VJ DAo4h05746pgTyLtuUQc0Ucr3k6f8mEf3hLw/5tQyttUkGWxHE6MKfrglQBcGI19 WAZWoXYVc2mFEEnLOaq2m4NdkmMbw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedruddtjedgtdegucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepudeggfdvfeduffdtfeeglefghfeukefgfffhueejtdetuedtjeeu ieeivdffgeehnecukfhppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeenucevlhhushhtvghruf hiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghl ohhnrdhnvght 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 843A03280391; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 04:28:43 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: 'Ferruh Yigit' , Jiawen Wu Cc: dev@dpdk.org, david.marchand@redhat.com, konstantin.ananyev@intel.com, honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2020 10:28:40 +0100 Message-ID: <3558935.noZgFSCOjD@thomas> In-Reply-To: <003e01d6b351$709871d0$51c95570$@trustnetic.com> References: <20201019085415.82207-1-jiawenwu@trustnetic.com> <003e01d6b351$709871d0$51c95570$@trustnetic.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 00/58] net: txgbe PMD 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" +Cc Konstantin and Honnappa for guidance 05/11/2020 09:55, Jiawen Wu: > On Thursday, November 5, 2020 9:55 AM, Jiawen Wu wrote: > > On Thursday, November 5, 2020 1:24 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > > > On 11/3/2020 11:08 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > When pulling in the main branch, I see some checkpatches warnings > > > > (in order of criticality): > > > > Using rte_smp_[r/w]mb > > > > Using rte_panic/rte_exit > > > > Using compiler attribute directly > > > > > > > > Please could you fix them (at least first two) before the second series? [...] > > I saw ' rte_smp_*mb ' is in the deprecation notices, but there is no function > can be an alternative. > I would like to use 'rte_atomic_thread_fence(__ATOMIC_ACQUIRE)' to replace > 'rte_smp_rmb()', is it the correct usage?