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 706D0A32A1 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 09:41:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 580F71D153; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 09:41:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-2.mimecast.com [205.139.110.61]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 278BC1D127 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 09:41:01 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1571902860; 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=kD8AbUPMqiuVW4Wf1q8lSFzqBuNq+UYVGLy8atBgDn8=; b=HwLnbeMOvLpizNbYrhD8CPrN/C5P4w/rVM52GrL0rFZqR3qijJXW8SF/NNyWzocq0WhsmL klw9QAVDj96GT52gID1lpRSGYbVZxlNYiSw/gJmf7eZ944a2zmWjKkFx8eqle0y0rJy5eM aj8kwcEmSWeDwrwXWyo5ghHFZzxG98U= Received: from mail-vk1-f200.google.com (mail-vk1-f200.google.com [209.85.221.200]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-256-6jCCNaE8NyuyP87o2UnrSg-1; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 03:40:57 -0400 Received: by mail-vk1-f200.google.com with SMTP id z23so264810vkb.3 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 00:40:57 -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=wENqkxVIOEhM74vcRZpEhBs5TLMV61m+uVjIlKY6oR4=; b=OClPgwcW4Ety3/LiqV2NlDnQBHDIiMXhV4eVWh7ny9UHd5pEKs4bh1yrtZXTAV1X1f SgPDjCv+Q3Yogyf8cr+jTzgUP8jYp6IuXXYD+oiAPrmsgtToBCEeqYBSC4aHoS/jE4pG YEBJIjr0nW3osQiMUS+bemU5nBs9E1TXC84vyVf9f09aOl0Il/eMJM+DT4U+IqtDq7Zk nU2OOvpJfNVS4If2nbZFD9io5DVBNwo8pDMpKiNyGOe9gsa31g+IQdSWuvDQbCei41Vk tKzDATE94wYO89vYhUG7FUHnS+yARYmhqALC8J3YnR+W4TNLZIhJ3CMJQf/pl7EMhvDL inmA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXkMLcO/xJo92BRCh2VOUX/2VphWv4Ctg9oyuB0CBjA1awzqyb5 h8EhZwUOg42vqc822uoKhuQ27/3b3GRzXeWRthwNX8aAmjnPwSVDNyJCBmPfQ+3hqnhiAtH2NAQ PS+tDmar6np5oYdXEKpk= X-Received: by 2002:a67:fc49:: with SMTP id p9mr7903636vsq.198.1571902856865; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 00:40:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxGNvKb1bvJDm6FsZxjfviCepxnCfYRuEb0Mv16z925j/X0ILnwAxsUZjUS+p66Bc7BNknl6qxRqwmzow8wYxA= X-Received: by 2002:a67:fc49:: with SMTP id p9mr7903626vsq.198.1571902856604; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 00:40:56 -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: From: David Marchand Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 09:40:45 +0200 Message-ID: To: David Christensen Cc: "Burakov, Anatoly" , dev X-MC-Unique: 6jCCNaE8NyuyP87o2UnrSg-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 6:56 PM David Christensen wrote: > > >>>> 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 sys= tems. > >>> > >>> With the ifdef fixed, the core walks the list in the reverse directio= n > >>> 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 i= n > >>> the reverse direction for Power systems. It might be something speci= fic > >>> to Power 8 systems which I'm not actually supporting on DPDK, only th= e > >>> Power 9 systems that I use for for development and testing. > >>> > >> If the code makes no difference anyway, should we just take it out so? > > > > +1 :-) > > I think there's a need for a larger review of Power8 vs. Power9 support. > You currently need to specify Power8 as the DPDK build target (e.g. > ppc_64-power8-linux-gcc) but all of our internal development and testing > efforts are targeting Power9 systems. My preference would be to drop > Power8 support all together but I'm reluctant to make such a potentially > large change so close to an LTS release target, and not without > soliciting some community comment on the idea. As a result, I'd prefer > to keep the change "as is" for this release. Ok, I will take it as is, but please do investigate this. The lesser special cases like these, the better. --=20 David Marchand