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 519D0A0527; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 15:53:47 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E2EB5B3A; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 15:53:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-io1-f68.google.com (mail-io1-f68.google.com [209.85.166.68]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF92F5B30 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 15:53:43 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-io1-f68.google.com with SMTP id u21so10010980iol.12 for ; Mon, 09 Nov 2020 06:53:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=5GlWsmwg9ZxIEpTZjV0LiUDLxxXsSDJ1qoYYB9ocB9A=; b=IRw+gJ7ks+YChJjwK2fvinmbAfHK+TyBPy20EFZn8BEhPOD5PGubwj9FVx3oP9dZs+ wD0zmbiOsQSYKQUu156LFWRsdHCATQudyMbZcsx5nU4QzNUaBaK0IACkexjnLBbUfWxx SAL72hZm1OP3UPnz2b8DuywTz/PC/d2SrH5iSxD8v+q2emMa7xKfvl9iG6Zanzu0ODWE 3xZjZroq9MtWfGzkkDLD0oYYLVjOW0N9XlvX2hCbOmOs8doVD6BSX8llrPKw0NseKeep ZoMB7FxQnEVeFEOGBCfO8U/bSV5zGUd69awzNJfoqEeRrhHg7Vejyv0W4lHPmEqrE2ha ceUw== 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=5GlWsmwg9ZxIEpTZjV0LiUDLxxXsSDJ1qoYYB9ocB9A=; b=KIKO5yzcj3fMOfhAqvbNUn2uJnOFcHeB2bqHAN0lkCgZskOW5fnbr806+bZ8x5XCE1 AeMr5AmAf46eo3D2prU5wZduLwt6rHo7MQEhHggdwT/U+qIkD1CxX9tpcQoHGUBtAwrr v7EWR7b/FriA8pfr7SoLwRnBM/75UG9vaZZcCjvetEQWtiKhZ8klZpb0xCj1i7Rl/M0C Yu8S3r9Z6eOMfPWAw/kiHb4yC8WlGer8Bf2WYCmSpkblNllbgSYAxiORy1Eu5tRzu2Ev KkXJgDpGyazrOTj8nmH+HsP3hZPlUX/aaiAHDLs2NlxSIZkPXnN+c+Ywo0fgfkUtlsxz vFMg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531Pr1hKRVAv6907UAPmHt66iZ5sLdj+KjO9blAh4GPjLGPIF640 jL4y/v7ZWPkj7ZvyGgxoJkRrYuriKMuC0YVQHUs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxocd1gY4ADNvFWyZBWCJdUfFDjfvUKDBMt60Te1LsJoOjOQLRUumSd6gr5DGGUizplXL8zjzTMPlnx3Dn4L1Q= X-Received: by 2002:a6b:5805:: with SMTP id m5mr10173370iob.1.1604933621776; Mon, 09 Nov 2020 06:53:41 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201107155306.463148-1-thomas@monjalon.net> <2407553.B4KgyuXQMY@thomas> <3413133.us5WgodGNe@thomas> In-Reply-To: <3413133.us5WgodGNe@thomas> From: Jerin Jacob Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2020 20:23:25 +0530 Message-ID: To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: Bruce Richardson , dpdk-dev , David Marchand , Ferruh Yigit , Olivier Matz , =?UTF-8?Q?Morten_Br=C3=B8rup?= , "Ananyev, Konstantin" , Andrew Rybchenko , Viacheslav Ovsiienko , Ajit Khaparde , Jerin Jacob , Hemant Agrawal , Ray Kinsella , Neil Horman , Nithin Dabilpuram , Kiran Kumar K , Ali Alnubani , rasland@nvidia.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/1] mbuf: move pool pointer in first half 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 Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 8:12 PM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 09/11/2020 15:08, Jerin Jacob: > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 7:32 PM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 09/11/2020 14:35, Jerin Jacob: > > > > Are you facing the issue with 32bit? Could you share the steps to > > > > reproduce and gcc version? > > > > > > Oh you're right, the issue was with 32-bit build, > > > > Thanks > > > > > sorry for the confusion. > > > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/net/octeontx2/otx2_ethdev.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/net/octeontx2/otx2_ethdev.c > > > > @@ -749,7 +749,7 @@ nix_tx_offload_flags(struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev) > > > > RTE_BUILD_BUG_ON(offsetof(struct rte_mbuf, pkt_len) != > > > > offsetof(struct rte_mbuf, ol_flags) + 12); > > > > RTE_BUILD_BUG_ON(offsetof(struct rte_mbuf, tx_offload) != > > > > - offsetof(struct rte_mbuf, pool) + 2 * sizeof(void *)); > > > > + offsetof(struct rte_mbuf, pool) + 2 * sizeof(uint64_t)); > > > > > > The actual "fix" is > > > offsetof(struct rte_mbuf, pool) + sizeof(uint64_t) + sizeof(void *) > > > > > > I don't understand the octeontx2 vector code. > > > Please check what is the impact of this offset change. > > > > Tested the changes, No issue seen. All the expectation of vector code > > is expressed with RTE_BUILD_BUG_ON. > > > > > BTW, is 32-bit build really supported with octeontx2? > > > > No. I think, keeping assert as "sizeof(void *)"(Same as now) and remove build > > support for 32bit works too for octeontx2. > > OK, I think it's better than tweaking RTE_BUILD_BUG_ON for > something not really supported. > > > We will add it when really required. > > Then I'm going to send a patch to disable octeontx2 drivers on 32-bit. OK. > > Note there is another build issue with octeontx2 drivers on CentOS/RHEL 7 > with Arm GGC 4.8. It is a segfault from the compiler. In Makefile, we have skipped building < 4.9, not sure what needs to be done for meson. > >