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 0CB64A034C; Mon, 9 May 2022 16:31:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8389410EE; Mon, 9 May 2022 16:31:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4214B407FF for ; Mon, 9 May 2022 16:31:04 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1652106663; 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=jvXbJeA3vkHZJoDOz2hQMyUTIWGZgDalWuVoj6F7HJw=; b=C2291oFJpeeuMhAkv+Y7a/nKb9AwVQoBNFrdsyiy4bn3dFLY0mUK2y2nLgytGYFHNjSxN5 tx5Gp1LRoXbY0t1gFOFonWTyov/0X2gLaCXYmcycWxTDlU+i62RR1pDIZR+7S1barEAZ0W zY3n5cU1H6GH1pp6Wmt1lNu3rxMe/tY= Received: from mail-lf1-f69.google.com (mail-lf1-f69.google.com [209.85.167.69]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-67-BjtcRwr-MOSA0JxTUQrvSA-1; Mon, 09 May 2022 10:31:02 -0400 X-MC-Unique: BjtcRwr-MOSA0JxTUQrvSA-1 Received: by mail-lf1-f69.google.com with SMTP id h15-20020ac24daf000000b00472586ed83dso5905544lfe.22 for ; Mon, 09 May 2022 07:31:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jvXbJeA3vkHZJoDOz2hQMyUTIWGZgDalWuVoj6F7HJw=; b=i2yn596NJka0BitWsLc2UMeserVVhi1P/h/hhYrmxeIWn60gjzJg9QindGMoplHl1N wBvZOvqJKLBMJBa8TNsYCtmO4npPaW+sBZYI8pFabt8CZOqJfGliXfJDw1N6+XeFTlfk /Mi3E96PAlProDA8BnGYAmgDjgyLpxFIKCcfiGooNBO7oom9NLiRf7IYWDh7xeq2Xq+k LjpIqckOOc9l3OMpY+QtFZOTYlzorkEp7HxCbTnAkuaVDAomZ7nhFNmdctma4EHdufuX 3BcUzCYyNys6m1RQ4MRde32BdBzizUyX6LHevkZkHZBHPU64UbI32Z/TcpWCA4dtvHFu 7bzQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530WsbeCs1XpstXKpUR2qZeYGPJoOL5w+irnC3ji3arm/rL+aMHb BixpHW8Nj9rKffdEZ4XD3v6YJJJIUDEmP56GwHIk4L8bS8wqQgehYWDIrSRDtFS5ZKf5O3IvPFB /Q8diOlPg14rnc2ntVLs= X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:2046:b0:250:cf36:eb77 with SMTP id t6-20020a05651c204600b00250cf36eb77mr1848642ljo.159.1652106660865; Mon, 09 May 2022 07:31:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyaREf/h0yQkCZy7Qu2ZImiqc94rfX7vOAL9QNYbhra9gPZW9qH03eObKgIUqBY8J99o55kitWBwycKmcZpR9c= X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:2046:b0:250:cf36:eb77 with SMTP id t6-20020a05651c204600b00250cf36eb77mr1848624ljo.159.1652106660614; Mon, 09 May 2022 07:31:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220505173003.3242618-1-kda@semihalf.com> In-Reply-To: From: David Marchand Date: Mon, 9 May 2022 16:30:49 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] Introduce support for RISC-V architecture To: =?UTF-8?Q?Stanis=C5=82aw_Kardach?= Cc: dev , Frank Zhao , Sam Grove , Marcin Wojtas , upstream@semihalf.com, Thomas Monjalon , Stephen Hemminger 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" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 2:24 PM Stanis=C5=82aw Kardach wr= ote: >> Testing all riscv configs in test-meson-buils.sh seems too much to me. >> Is there a real value to test both current targets? > > It's for sanity and compilation coverage testing. I.e. SiFive variant has= a specific build config which does not require extra barriers when reading= time and cycle registers for rte_rdtsc_precise(). I want to make sure that= if anyone changes some code based on configuration flags, it gets at least= compile-checked. > I believe similar thing is done for Aarch64 builds. As far as I experienced, building all those aarch64 combinations never revealed any specific platform compilation issue. It only consumes cpu, disk and our (maintainers) time. I proposed to Thomas to shrink aarch64 builds list not so long ago :-). The best would be for SiFive to provide a system for the CI to do those checks on their variant. >> About the new "Sponsored-by" tag, it should not raise warnings in the >> CI if we agree on its addition. > > I'll modify it in V2 to be in form of: > Sponsored by: StarFive Technology > ... > Signed-off-by: ... > This was suggested by Stephen Hemminger as having a precedent in Linux ke= rnel. Interestingly enough first use of this tag in kernel source was this = year in January. I don't have an opinion on the spelling. At the moment, the checks raise a warning: http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/test-report/2022-May/278580.html My point is that for this new tag, either checkpatch.pl in kernel handles it (which I don't think it is the case) or we need to disable the signature check in checkpatch.pl and something is added in dpdk checkpatches.sh to accept all known tags. >> In general, please avoid letting arch specific headers leak >> internal/non rte_ prefixed helpers out of them. >> For example, I noticed a RV64_CSRR macro that can be undefined after usa= ge. > > Thanks for noticing. I'l fix this one in V2. > There are 2 other symbols that leak but on purpose (out of a better idea)= : vect_load_128() and vect_and(). Both are used in l3fwd_em to simulate vec= tor operations. Other platforms reference their intrinsics straight in the = l3fwd_em.c. As I don't have support for vector ops and I wanted to indicate= that xmm_t should be an isolated API, I've put both in rte_vect.h. That sa= id I'm not happy with this solution and am open to suggestions on how to so= lve it neatly. I'll try to have a look in the next revision. >> >> >> Patch 3 is huge, not sure it is easy to split, did you consider doing so= ? > > It seems to me the nature of a new EAL implementation, I have to include = all symbols, otherwise DPDK won't compile. > Alternatively I could have a huge initial patch with empty stubs that wou= ld be filled in later commits. Downside of this approach is that it's hard = to verify each commit separately as tests will fail until all implementatio= n is there, so the division is only visual. If you are sure there is nothing that can be separated, let's keep it whole= . --=20 David Marchand