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 4E21141C8A; Mon, 13 Feb 2023 17:47:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D896A40EF1; Mon, 13 Feb 2023 17:47:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-yb1-f181.google.com (mail-yb1-f181.google.com [209.85.219.181]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D367440EE4; Mon, 13 Feb 2023 17:47:09 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-yb1-f181.google.com with SMTP id x71so14186859ybg.6; Mon, 13 Feb 2023 08:47:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=h2H7Y6+ZSIjlukQ2hypuwU4vbemQ8X49csAgqk6jmnI=; b=oLiSRjQZe9N6h2KahjHxI8kV91FI7Kti1FV3bb4vrILv611KvZ/ulott+NNwI4hfiW sUpTvu59lC5vcqqN//E4o2Wxt1upq5kKCN3JrIXjJ08ZkECC8FbEvAEnr3fzQ0n62zFY suOpRjC02WsurdRhdWsjyVtZpZXsmCzwYa9EASFd1N1657FY+7GwEKOXE1evHj7uAkJ9 pz18js4DtvS/J1uNHZak51rJvvETmzjsmugiJf6sJcHphLz+gLXoZqfmvEwGqEe9IePU bqWJsRhvulqrE1B9JzTxXjxrSAY13EXowExrf/+rLMebNFm0VNcyX5xcjHY/iY88tvhO yanw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=h2H7Y6+ZSIjlukQ2hypuwU4vbemQ8X49csAgqk6jmnI=; b=eaGfao96cfKwVNzD9j+r9bD4YM1TaflkWgO1TY9TteIHJei1ME42CxJe2uFUvrOdVf //t1Y9Vp9v+PVypDnAazZM6CeHisfeaoxSSivvNttC9V8jihAaNu100SMV4e6z080ZzB efCbqH1OE63+zNKsIlm8StJRZgII4OALMrnM6klBOLQnwaCFy+uHWNLpQTij/MXZPChn Qa3mJVuZT0G6mg4GA7PUe1Wr+sKUqyaa8VCtps5ziSGtcCyWdvr/cN0V8wcjT9wsB1vR R8PGluJYefc1Hro/xZi+ZxbVhaOX6QnGdFznCsifWti1bKgMgPja0niEvc5o02FOOu7W cQJg== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKWNs9EZfRSgiw/ff2qKrA2p28eptUjFY1tx8y4L3Oen26Z8iLuZ WJyou73q0OiY8MKACdz5LBifEt84kx/5QkgAznE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set8TA968hfiGPdB0wi9xkMjWhCH+dImYFNA3DRYgOBuikdS+TAxUArNDhqYh+FTFmyydpkotiHVofDLlrxeR6vI= X-Received: by 2002:a25:f211:0:b0:865:5f04:cfd9 with SMTP id i17-20020a25f211000000b008655f04cfd9mr3176550ybe.416.1676306829174; Mon, 13 Feb 2023 08:47:09 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20230208012040.GA22219@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net> <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35D8770D@smartserver.smartshare.dk> <20230208163521.GB5117@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net> <20230209173017.GA21854@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net> <20230210203013.GB25500@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net> In-Reply-To: From: Ben Magistro Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2023 11:46:57 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] eal: introduce atomics abstraction To: Bruce Richardson Cc: Honnappa Nagarahalli , Tyler Retzlaff , =?UTF-8?Q?Morten_Br=C3=B8rup?= , "thomas@monjalon.net" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "david.marchand@redhat.com" , "jerinj@marvell.com" , "konstantin.ananyev@huawei.com" , "ferruh.yigit@amd.com" , nd , "techboard@dpdk.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000166c0805f497998b" 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 --000000000000166c0805f497998b Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 10:55 AM Bruce Richardson < bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 10:28:40AM -0500, Ben Magistro wrote: > > There is a thread discussing a change to the standard [1] but I have > > not seen anything explicit yet about moving to C11. I am personally > in > > favor of making the jump to C11 now as part of the 23.x branch and > > provided my thoughts in the linked thread (what other projects using > > DPDK have as minimum compiler requirements, CentOS 7 EOL dates). > > Is the long term plan to backport this change set to the existing LTS > > release or is this meant to be something introduced for use in 23.x > and > > going forward? I think I was (probably naively) assuming this would > be > > a new feature in the 23.x going forward only. > > [1] [1]http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2023-February/262188.html > > > We don't bump requirements for older LTS releases, so any change to minimum > required versions would only be for the 23.x series releases I meant the atomics change set, I should have been clearer in that question, my apologies. If the atomic work is planned to be backported, the question of if/when the C11 standard would be adopted seems less relevant since it would need to be supported for DPDK versions that do not have the C11 standard requirement too. --000000000000166c0805f497998b Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 10:55 AM Bruc= e Richardson <bruce.richar= dson@intel.com> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 10:28:40AM -0500, Ben Magistro wrote:=
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 There is a thread discussing a change to the standard [1]= but I have
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 not seen anything explicit yet about moving to C11.=C2=A0= I am personally in
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 favor of making the jump to C11 now as part of the 23.x b= ranch and
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 provided my thoughts in the linked thread (what other pro= jects using
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 DPDK have as minimum compiler requirements, CentOS 7 EOL = dates).
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Is the long term plan to backport this change set to the = existing LTS
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 release or is this meant to be something introduced for u= se in 23.x and
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 going forward?=C2=A0 I think I was (probably naively) ass= uming this would be
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 a new feature in the 23.x going forward only.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 [1] [1]http://mails.dp= dk.org/archives/dev/2023-February/262188.html
>
We don't bump requirements for older LTS releases, so any change to min= imum
required versions would only be for the 23.x series releases

I meant the atomics change set, I should have been cleare= r in that question, my apologies.=C2=A0 If the atomic work is planned to be= backported, the question of if/when the C11 standard would be adopted=C2= =A0seems less relevant since it would need to be supported for DPDK version= s that do not have the C11 standard requirement too.
--000000000000166c0805f497998b--