From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41AB03977 for ; Thu, 9 May 2019 22:12:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id C474F267C2; Thu, 9 May 2019 16:12:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 09 May 2019 16:12:40 -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=EGOAJNAhQvlsu/YBeAM406UvtnqtcFMki3wVLaYPQd0=; b=pAaGH8wHoh5A gaj0myr4R3RhC0IimStZ8kRPVtfQAQsnPmEfNiGeUOdfnu/7sfzUP/g2gw+qP2dk hx2DskQFQRP5obTD+7K0wGBUlpw8v/s13vOfaf2OJNZIerDHFnATIyRo0nrmwp6a gzGgBVMzxWNrfKCmUepJE+B2qPdprpg= 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=EGOAJNAhQvlsu/YBeAM406UvtnqtcFMki3wVLaYPQ d0=; b=LyWez/hOP1LwiWnUPqr/ZmA/NNmNisYF5dhwJR7fZRN8Q3zCbbpx/D6Mr ew9HhXOS0HdNxvnFEGgcal244Aljy2w1SDXZPBnD4tQwe2BDmzyyfnJn/Oc4UdpX Wai4nNAxz2KI+pabqjxyeRfDpB+zyT73pOjBOyda6WxHHMKDgISDXa1zRILtUgSZ 6mnSbnaqC1orh8KIfXl98Kmgl2obA2t4lWa/EmxrLqx8307yRRYZR9qjWkJMdHXz eZV1vgt8fnK1u+zNe2RrL2lQc9DWjQruzymQ8KoZgQowbJPp1KDaS+C02yrtwPVC sEwIdMBHc7X9Sq6agjMbsN+mON2eA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduuddrkeeigdekhecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf 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 7C657103CC; Thu, 9 May 2019 16:12:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Carrillo, Erik G" Cc: "Burakov, Anatoly" , "rsanford@akamai.com" , "dev@dpdk.org" Date: Thu, 09 May 2019 22:12:38 +0200 Message-ID: <5432120.ZjB8uZtkDB@xps> In-Reply-To: References: <1557353861-31997-1-git-send-email-erik.g.carrillo@intel.com> <7268235.EfLeTirqVG@xps> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] timer: allow first subsystem init from secondary 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 May 2019 20:12:41 -0000 09/05/2019 22:08, Carrillo, Erik G: > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net] > > 09/05/2019 21:39, Erik Gabriel Carrillo: > > > Since memzones can be reserved from secondary processes as well as > > > primary processes, if the first call to the timer subsystem init > > > function occurs in a secondary process, we should allow it to succeed. > > > > > > Fixes: c0749f7096c7 ("timer: allow management in shared memory") > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Erik Gabriel Carrillo > > > > I think this patch is too big for -rc4. > > And it doesn't look so critical. > > Do you agree to wait 19.08? > > > > The very last hunk of the patch should at least be applied, as it fixes an issue in the finalize() function. The rest of it is just to make sure the behavior is the same as the prior release with respect to the secondary. > > I'd prefer if the whole patch was applied, but I can break out the last hunk for a very small patch if that's what you think we should do. It's a pity it comes so late. Can you tell how much you think it won't bring any regression? Are you available everyday until Monday to fix it quickly if something goes wrong? From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BED0A0096 for ; Thu, 9 May 2019 22:12:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B85644C3; Thu, 9 May 2019 22:12:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41AB03977 for ; Thu, 9 May 2019 22:12:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id C474F267C2; Thu, 9 May 2019 16:12:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 09 May 2019 16:12:40 -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=EGOAJNAhQvlsu/YBeAM406UvtnqtcFMki3wVLaYPQd0=; b=pAaGH8wHoh5A gaj0myr4R3RhC0IimStZ8kRPVtfQAQsnPmEfNiGeUOdfnu/7sfzUP/g2gw+qP2dk hx2DskQFQRP5obTD+7K0wGBUlpw8v/s13vOfaf2OJNZIerDHFnATIyRo0nrmwp6a gzGgBVMzxWNrfKCmUepJE+B2qPdprpg= 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=EGOAJNAhQvlsu/YBeAM406UvtnqtcFMki3wVLaYPQ d0=; b=LyWez/hOP1LwiWnUPqr/ZmA/NNmNisYF5dhwJR7fZRN8Q3zCbbpx/D6Mr ew9HhXOS0HdNxvnFEGgcal244Aljy2w1SDXZPBnD4tQwe2BDmzyyfnJn/Oc4UdpX Wai4nNAxz2KI+pabqjxyeRfDpB+zyT73pOjBOyda6WxHHMKDgISDXa1zRILtUgSZ 6mnSbnaqC1orh8KIfXl98Kmgl2obA2t4lWa/EmxrLqx8307yRRYZR9qjWkJMdHXz eZV1vgt8fnK1u+zNe2RrL2lQc9DWjQruzymQ8KoZgQowbJPp1KDaS+C02yrtwPVC sEwIdMBHc7X9Sq6agjMbsN+mON2eA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduuddrkeeigdekhecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf 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 7C657103CC; Thu, 9 May 2019 16:12:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Carrillo, Erik G" Cc: "Burakov, Anatoly" , "rsanford@akamai.com" , "dev@dpdk.org" Date: Thu, 09 May 2019 22:12:38 +0200 Message-ID: <5432120.ZjB8uZtkDB@xps> In-Reply-To: References: <1557353861-31997-1-git-send-email-erik.g.carrillo@intel.com> <7268235.EfLeTirqVG@xps> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] timer: allow first subsystem init from secondary 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" Message-ID: <20190509201238.YdYB7S-9wcslsznjM_exI-J3zU9iiu-S4YVmNdR6aW0@z> 09/05/2019 22:08, Carrillo, Erik G: > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net] > > 09/05/2019 21:39, Erik Gabriel Carrillo: > > > Since memzones can be reserved from secondary processes as well as > > > primary processes, if the first call to the timer subsystem init > > > function occurs in a secondary process, we should allow it to succeed. > > > > > > Fixes: c0749f7096c7 ("timer: allow management in shared memory") > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Erik Gabriel Carrillo > > > > I think this patch is too big for -rc4. > > And it doesn't look so critical. > > Do you agree to wait 19.08? > > > > The very last hunk of the patch should at least be applied, as it fixes an issue in the finalize() function. The rest of it is just to make sure the behavior is the same as the prior release with respect to the secondary. > > I'd prefer if the whole patch was applied, but I can break out the last hunk for a very small patch if that's what you think we should do. It's a pity it comes so late. Can you tell how much you think it won't bring any regression? Are you available everyday until Monday to fix it quickly if something goes wrong?