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 DB6F4A0562; Mon, 3 May 2021 16:21:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6591640150; Mon, 3 May 2021 16:21:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [216.205.24.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D85D04014E for ; Mon, 3 May 2021 16:21:40 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1620051699; 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: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=iX+L58v88KnHh4eNIsrJ+DFBe2g+K8yzemmKwiaunqE=; b=NUHBUK6APTC8OvWwWACdZ5EsdQWAZvjyImJFwFFl6otzvBJnOC9LR4QZCkTuP6i+JYDQPv TFaEMJ9wRF05iNl7G8ApET2DABWlGj7CNI0uP46xjrDHTWjOKST1G3VU7ozH9aNWqjKiOz va9lVBmkADg2qDOhuNe+T6OCpZB71AQ= Received: from mail-vs1-f72.google.com (mail-vs1-f72.google.com [209.85.217.72]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-393-dR2C_MhZMSGf_msC_ze98Q-1; Mon, 03 May 2021 10:21:37 -0400 X-MC-Unique: dR2C_MhZMSGf_msC_ze98Q-1 Received: by mail-vs1-f72.google.com with SMTP id s26-20020a67c39a0000b02902274964b0a0so2838543vsj.19 for ; Mon, 03 May 2021 07:21:37 -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=iX+L58v88KnHh4eNIsrJ+DFBe2g+K8yzemmKwiaunqE=; b=YQ6fYtmAvrApZhsnUruVMSB9cj73ndQXmM2Z8CO8v914S2qH7bkNgobjPtTMp8pJHp XscDYnEeoqjyHGSqYwZBAh+HEI2VylX5VyhAN1kjAVKi208RytDeplwYBKm3PgugFxIv ET5Mlhq79VTfOKWttcAV7HGaYz5fBTZEYVJCFL2yn/2yLwhnmivgA1LySkqW+CKpls3J pxSSasVPqhGwB7JivW4Rd7IjJcB4ct1lraNLuBnc8jWhcSDhhBPixC+/WYsF6nGUO/WG at+PXKMgd/jUmqcYvmk0c6rMS4hXnzBdylOZAJrHOcDDLm5KCYoSW1MDaE1cYcjsI4f6 J+MQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532HgpN13eaCHqcrHhozuPnoBOtHbyW41x0Q55IpFlAlkzG+3Ac+ Za9JRGgDjOzS+OkVpdKWqD8ERLrvNrZR2/gXV9JuvEO6QpMMRoUiS+/ZMTd+yXui4Uifg+VNbsT WlA/tx/SDlSGazfd5XP4= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:5682:: with SMTP id k124mr8074815vkb.20.1620051697203; Mon, 03 May 2021 07:21:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzSwpoRoXakPHbAG659PyphrUPQP/TzCEOQ1o/sIe6TtuKK2zYMJ+pN4EaZ6ubpglOFUfXY1/BGH3pW+DCSwA4= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:5682:: with SMTP id k124mr8074769vkb.20.1620051696930; Mon, 03 May 2021 07:21:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210412082901.652736-1-kda@semihalf.com> In-Reply-To: <20210412082901.652736-1-kda@semihalf.com> From: David Marchand Date: Mon, 3 May 2021 16:21:25 +0200 Message-ID: To: Luca Boccassi , Christian Ehrhardt Cc: Olivier Matz , dev , dpdk stable , Kevin Traynor , Thomas Monjalon , Stanislaw Kardach Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=dmarchan@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/3] add lock-free stack support discovery 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" On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 10:29 AM Stanislaw Kardach wrote: > > The lock-free stack implementation (RTE_STACK_F_LF) is supported only on a > subset of platforms, namely x86_64 and arm64. Platforms supporting 128b atomics > have to opt-in to a generic or C11 implementations. All other platforms use a > stubbed implementation for push/pop operations which are basically NOPs. > However rte_stack_create() will not fail and application can proceed assuming > it has a working lock-free stack. > > This means that among other things the stack_lf fast and perf tests will fail > as if implementation is wrong (which one can argue is). Therefore this patchset > tries to give user a way to check whether a lock_free is supported or not both > at compile time (build flag) and at runtime (ENOTSUP errno in rte_stack_create). > > I have added cc to stable@dpdk.org because check-git-log.sh suggested it. I'm > not sure if adding a binary compatible change to API is worth stable@dpdk.org. > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org The issue was hit while porting to a new architecture. The feature is broken in existing stable releases and it won't get fixed by this change. I'd rather not backport it. Opinions? -- David Marchand