From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B175F2BF3 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 18:31:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 30 Mar 2016 09:31:32 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,417,1455004800"; d="scan'208";a="948147157" Received: from irsmsx151.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.192.59]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 30 Mar 2016 09:31:30 -0700 Received: from irsmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.13]) by IRSMSX151.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.4.72]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 17:31:30 +0100 From: "Dumitrescu, Cristian" To: Thomas Monjalon CC: "dev@dpdk.org" , "Singh, Jasvinder" , "Zhang, Roy Fan" , "Hunt, David" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/4] examples/ip_pipeline: fix build for x86_64 without SSE4.2 Thread-Index: AQHRip/iLORfqzE+MUqzNZmcTi4zI59yKvig Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 16:31:29 +0000 Message-ID: <3EB4FA525960D640B5BDFFD6A3D891264797477B@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1455605170-16137-1-git-send-email-thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> <1519299.Ljb19TASP1@xps13> <3EB4FA525960D640B5BDFFD6A3D89126479745AA@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <2177795.lZF7jR9sKJ@xps13> In-Reply-To: <2177795.lZF7jR9sKJ@xps13> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiYmM3OGYzN2ItMWFjNi00ZTkxLTg0YzctNWM2OTU2NTg3MjRmIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX0lDIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE1LjkuNi42IiwiVHJ1c3RlZExhYmVsSGFzaCI6IisyT3NYVWt5c3VKdTRpWm1sOHZnSG40U2Y1cU4zUEY2NnA5dzRUSWpRcFE9In0= x-ctpclassification: CTP_IC x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.181] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/4] examples/ip_pipeline: fix build for x86_64 without SSE4.2 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: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 16:31:33 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 4:50 PM > To: Dumitrescu, Cristian > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Singh, Jasvinder ; Zhang, > Roy Fan ; Hunt, David > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/4] examples/ip_pipeline: fix build fo= r > x86_64 without SSE4.2 >=20 > 2016-03-30 14:15, Dumitrescu, Cristian: > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > > > 2016-03-30 13:57, Dumitrescu, Cristian: > > > > I think the correct fix is: > > > > #if defined(__x86_64__) && > (defined(RTE_MACHINE_CPUFLAG_SSE4_2) > > > || defined(RTE_MACHINE_CPUFLAG_CRC32)) > > > > > > > > We'll test it and send a patch asap. > > > > > > I had prepared this patch. Please be inspired: > > > > > > examples/ip_pipeline: fix SSE4.2 optimization branch > > > > > > The branch was disabled because of a typo in the SSE4.2 flag. > > > Change also the x86_64 flag to use a DPDK one. > > > > > > Fixes: 28377375c6c0 ("examples/ip_pipeline: fix build for x86_64 > without > > > SSE4.2") > > > > > > -#if defined(__x86_64__) && defined(RTE_CPUFLAG_SSE4_2) > > > +#if defined(RTE_ARCH_X86_64) && > > > defined(RTE_MACHINE_CPUFLAG_SSE4_2) > > > > Acked-by: Cristian Dumitrescu >=20 > I thought you wanted to send a patch with another CPUFLAG (CRC32)? The extra flag is good, but not absolutely required, as SSE4.2 implies supp= ort for CRC32 instruction. The CRC32 flag might be useful when a CPU architecture other than Intel sup= ports the CRC32 instruction, but I am not sure whether such CPU architectur= e exists. Anyway, the SSE4.2 || CRC32 pattern is already present in several= DPDK files, so I was looking to observe it as well. I thought you considered the CRC32 flag to be redundant and decided to remo= ve it on purpose. I am OK if you want to go ahead with your patch right now, otherwise we can= send a patch tomorrow? Thanks, Cristian