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 A7C30A0A0C; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 13:44:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B16440E3C; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 13:44:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from new3-smtp.messagingengine.com (new3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.229]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 574614069F; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 13:44:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D61C580B90; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 07:44:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 14 Jul 2021 07:44:22 -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= mJsj10Estzp6gI+rzm++aL7dj7lD8NyTSJLrgu0szh8=; b=Etx9Jzt7ZHzW/BZQ ydk9iosheeRAtEE2frP8s51jyPcBDUAGYT9IHQ7smOQsbMyxA8LI+JERdCZgZd5B V4COy6wh0Ti2xz5OlxE1Uxf/d3eLGIVWp0CJynR9Td9eodhYJiPrAp76bVbof0ez Nr+EhlRhbXHXlm+IUon2V7fa5Rw8rU/e6E4qeDR0EIHnMI1VNVxoTfw9C3k7sZva sBgNNND2uuaH5jaiyjcpR9s75fRBWjTFmC6EATr4yxNiXgfdpjzYcR/yhsuqxNvX m26Kru5Wo3PH910dyrd2u4wC2RFgr2fWwVpyW5oNr2dkckQhgQX9T+LGjPT81zUY CQk1vw== 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=mJsj10Estzp6gI+rzm++aL7dj7lD8NyTSJLrgu0sz h8=; b=bRHCLc4OFlQdupySc0YMymf3jiZb091NR0Ug4wqwVqFsDM16qkekpoln4 VcRSzuCrgUIWvvXWOP4fVUXHM1gxXMi0xU0gmVe77dvi85UqoW/KnvQH1IyIerjK KpsGt+2PQ8SrrbBS89lK0K1IOS+SRn8bKqyJHE3lRqYoEivKaTlHvKC1V1TxMLuB kscPf2B4Gki9/vvz13p7M/Uz2ed/6mP/sN2S6Z186TQ4R656hnwQllVUtX/SLV5R eNzy8ZnnKAy6M9k6BsBLxqS0O8BUHAsEergyUdXZKo5uKV9SlrHhApz3vsF+vztC 1OtbHEf/NUcW8yoF4zcIdIXlB5hTA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvtddrudekgdegfecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucggtf frrghtthgvrhhnpedugefgvdefudfftdefgeelgffhueekgfffhfeujedtteeutdejueei iedvffegheenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhroh hmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 07:44:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "david.marchand@redhat.com" , Joyce Kong Cc: Honnappa Nagarahalli , Tyler Retzlaff , "dev@dpdk.org" , "stephen@networkplumber.org" , "olivier.matz@6wind.com" , "andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru" , "harry.van.haaren@intel.com" , Ruifeng Wang , "techboard@dpdk.org" , nd Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2021 13:44:24 +0200 Message-ID: <9457012.R7DUN0BsNp@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20210604094624.31308-1-joyce.kong@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/8] use GCC's C11 atomic builtins for test 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" 13/07/2021 09:28, Joyce Kong: > Hi David, > > Since we have some discussion about the atomic operations now, I changed the commit message from "C11 atomics"(which has been widely used in previous commit) to "GCC atomic built-ins". > What's your opinion about whether keeping the previous message for the consistency or using the new description? Given clang adopted the same syntax as GCC, I prefer "compiler atomic builtins".