From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08A8AA0562; Tue, 4 May 2021 08:45:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAB9A410E2; Tue, 4 May 2021 08:45:10 +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 031AA4014D for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 4 May 2021 08:45:08 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1620110708; 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=pe1Tz3Vvcp2/9DL+58hzo8nTxAMQvw9ure0lsonQ4LA=; b=DVv+0XXNIUL/Gyhclmp9+//6oczuybA9tq6FmhYGGVSp0pyQDPEo8ENIc6NP2+Bu16aYAj 0EEsT+yAPAETR+66lVZY52nNdUPIKmBNCr3w8UVPeP+qYh8bB1ZRRjHsj43m/8vf1ebdBs pX/KI7GtK46FO21gyXTkwim+DcidBDY= Received: from mail-vs1-f69.google.com (mail-vs1-f69.google.com [209.85.217.69]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-593-_3WkhZscP5aJtF7w_6ByiA-1; Tue, 04 May 2021 02:45:06 -0400 X-MC-Unique: _3WkhZscP5aJtF7w_6ByiA-1 Received: by mail-vs1-f69.google.com with SMTP id q16-20020a67d7900000b0290228198e77b6so822905vsj.23 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 03 May 2021 23:45:06 -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=pe1Tz3Vvcp2/9DL+58hzo8nTxAMQvw9ure0lsonQ4LA=; b=QBXXwA7CoC4eT3kVuha5WwFMz+L+Z5yoNU4DcosVkKTUz/jY/H88HcSirjgf9K4LNx qmcb1RjVdiqN1xeTXfkAFTwfxqbMTZKhQDNeo9bmBHQi/FK2eo1o5UJd/Vpl/H4FkdT5 mVwZPtEGQTrpBAwDNie4jiKIN0D53h+P9Ksc1qFv8B/ip5nrkhEqvOqh1Nv+OuNsgxF2 nd7BOKRDkrkcV0HXaEu0dHS2Bop519/cQqStytndJsradBfUWk+hAdCUVa5wocw04qZf YeL/9MPimrXxS0n0acQMyljKBlWR3AdGwlL1MmXEpz2gxko/vZLp7AMvd/m5RBrYmavO T7UA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531Q6NcBTB4xO2pE0mUmeOquz/DWL5Bqu078O/UmebfpDcNs7cin vqFhz6uYVXx33Gkeow2A/xbwV7XwOdLXOXyfpRXK3a5EQYfnJY945LIhUSMaGsZj8bMU73i/B70 Gh3EuwsNMe8OnoZwX3w8= X-Received: by 2002:a9f:368f:: with SMTP id p15mr18428874uap.41.1620110706471; Mon, 03 May 2021 23:45:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx0/YpavfTOwzogPo/0yMN7RhS7kCW9s3TkgbFdslc9Tz1kgZJT0TxJH+ZNihd+eQT4iKyJ1wK7Q0LPaMxP7VU= X-Received: by 2002:a9f:368f:: with SMTP id p15mr18428868uap.41.1620110706330; Mon, 03 May 2021 23:45:06 -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 <david.marchand@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 4 May 2021 08:44:55 +0200 Message-ID: <CAJFAV8z+c4C0BL1Dm5H4sEvP7xC6SNnDghAV+1t4EDj3=6FLOA@mail.gmail.com> To: Stanislaw Kardach <kda@semihalf.com> Cc: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>, dev <dev@dpdk.org>, dpdk stable <stable@dpdk.org> 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 <dev.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/> List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 10:29 AM Stanislaw Kardach <kda@semihalf.com> 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). Series applied. Thanks Stanislaw! -- David Marchand