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 D0590A317C for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 18:35:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09F871E8F4; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 18:35:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-1.mimecast.com [205.139.110.61]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 367241E8F3 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 18:35:30 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1571330129; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=n4c54icHYatgKzbd1CyW0ATAsYxhKwrlKC3yfqV0Y5o=; b=gvg+4Ih0A12SoC+2G2fc6/Kum1D8Gx3uRXbRQbRM03QQTO9GChKB9lV63zU3UgJoVx6g4j 764ChKzHgXyNYTBbVLmSlJvc+YQW0dvYeh+OiHEC9BthMHyZmnT/wY8cZApJoMJlFdR1pz zcOQjXv6+HYeBtPpzYyyFlHM/WFGzV4= Received: from mail-ua1-f70.google.com (mail-ua1-f70.google.com [209.85.222.70]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-252-Ws23eZpAOjuI4AkWTntpcw-1; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 12:35:26 -0400 Received: by mail-ua1-f70.google.com with SMTP id 13so432141uag.22 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 09:35:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=RjXhlJqIkcCcDJLTLTylLHWmmshsajl2KidBcWrKtfc=; b=MZcWuUQZeKUMeNhy3l0Y53NgzMaw0a2rIKK1d2i1ssKNNOalV0t4sLGUIHasY9D59f vKMDhw7yZzQIM3qcLHuIw9JDG4W7s2tDLsNbI78M7LitqA/k0YUc4nBnBZvrjqltOr+n tFMrGOjNLKLBE/m9RGdY1bPeM9esuyooyoXiotV0/h2U/54aLyFHoND3Geue2YGH7pQs NgvsjLCATHCjbwNZzhri8ZU+ExFO5HRxXRrxKUAYoxunUGliEtxAfja/sqs0ESmMn2KM r98rhnROuj4z50kNG4qpCV2Ja0lzGwDll6uAdiJc3TjDDfYccaG0zchvBymZBlTuPlSc 9JNQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW1Q/zYrCqZJ2l0ylAe5UCiYbZ2QQOQcJf6M8R/WsgOqxjlxR/G FJ3ExdZOpvvR9f9NNb0iU7/Q5IF3nIwfK3Z7VVH282PKHC//8pfnWOGUGXlehkxPwRmCPzsm61R 9n1Sxxrr3jDQz/OAJXiQ= X-Received: by 2002:a67:fa99:: with SMTP id f25mr2446981vsq.141.1571330126332; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 09:35:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyhHM11VZQzz9Sp54RCCRmCJ1JG2EGyeDEdqOkjxkc+OMd8Cxq73A8aHJQj3xZZQdGeEzytcvGfVv4TtvkXNo8= X-Received: by 2002:a67:fa99:: with SMTP id f25mr2446963vsq.141.1571330125994; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 09:35:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190925214223.79362-1-drc@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <2b23f288-242e-b280-4ec5-c790e777c4fc@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <2b23f288-242e-b280-4ec5-c790e777c4fc@intel.com> From: David Marchand Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 18:35:14 +0200 Message-ID: To: "Burakov, Anatoly" Cc: David Christensen , dev X-MC-Unique: Ws23eZpAOjuI4AkWTntpcw-1 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal:ppc: fix incorrect ifdef for ppc_64 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" On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 6:18 PM Burakov, Anatoly wrote: > > On 16-Oct-19 9:45 PM, David Christensen wrote: > >>> An ifdef present in eal_memory.c references "RTE_ARCH_PPC64" when > >>> it should actually use "RTE_ARCH_PPC_64". Simple testing revealed > >>> that both the PPC_64 and non-PPC_64 versions of the code involved > >>> work, but the PPC_64 version of the code is retained to be > >>> consistent with other instances in the same file where mmapped > >>> memory is accessed in reverse order on Power platforms. > >> > >> The change itself is not that scary, but just reading this commitlog I > >> fail to see the impact for an application. > >> Can you share some light? > >> > > > > As far as I can tell there is no impact on any applications. The old > > code, which walked through the list in a forward direction, worked > > perfectly well with testpmd and DPDK pktgen applications on Power syste= ms. > > > > With the ifdef fixed, the core walks the list in the reverse direction > > as intended, the code still worked (i.e. no errors or problems were > > observed in the same test applications). > > > > I'm not completely familiar with why memseg lists must be traversed in > > the reverse direction for Power systems. It might be something specifi= c > > to Power 8 systems which I'm not actually supporting on DPDK, only the > > Power 9 systems that I use for for development and testing. > > > > Dave > > > > If the code makes no difference anyway, should we just take it out so? +1 :-) --=20 David Marchand