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 C40D5A0527; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 15:08:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDD4C5B30; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 15:08:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-il1-f195.google.com (mail-il1-f195.google.com [209.85.166.195]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B37215AB3 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 15:08:41 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-il1-f195.google.com with SMTP id z2so8358266ilh.11 for ; Mon, 09 Nov 2020 06:08:41 -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=Yi9oHWsGFFh2LDUdm5wr81MVVJUqmnhnQMWT++0zIxg=; b=YsPTom5jNY9IEaeGCvlAB0VS11u+iwT2ErDXOxq4+GkIEe3zEoIPbXbEM+O0b9KQ1k JXatgCBrsQWas5Y3HxHv4kiPVXtCD43lzfvbHWOxGQloUih7gFYZWyjKPIyYVgEy9tJX MT1VIYRwgBzIm5bJ151IAmWhjkHr9EhwBZWsUbl4ioMJY4N/1P+/+2dXPgEil+aRP84L 5ARDBmOYi1G7qMcdzPPr47owQWdwvaQoXaLo1j2pxvZqG5X7TmJjomZg+IYE+Vzj9h9I DXCBcfOxyHfzUB/zlQnE2Ddhy2SNful2mQ7u+2CCu7Cq5Pk4IknsAvQEyUDTxjP1uTqx QPeA== 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=Yi9oHWsGFFh2LDUdm5wr81MVVJUqmnhnQMWT++0zIxg=; b=gwJryEd7vCGV27rY70AElnfbyEATrpJPwradYI+NfxgjNGVuuNCF6N6l4imGBc88jk xfV436Sgg+6igy/rEAST9tQHhe97wD1RoS/wcd9LMQ5hP8O6zZ0gcjE5/p6ECNvO9q1A Srr0vJpvT0equBpgfkkdvzlMZ/fzIjGZmp3lFfG+PLYzqsBkzlzDWqrtAqoMSYUFqwT4 5+pSYRpvjUtT7PK70HYCIdH5nVdNJxnLVL9wq1qbwI49jaOHHfNnYvD65Dnib5rituPj nwKpzcy5GneuIY0LJTUQ9/pJ6J6VuDtTwFJRHd7Y9LZmfMMnUeX6E3aQ3HJmq6V2pwrD ZuBg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5338haq1rzaH5jw853VGv7RliG9mzC3pkzmKX43LOd1+EgaztXOw lRFhibE4NQE8pbsb3S1zPdLyMRprrXdnzU0AYZ4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwzOShWCsDykx5pvs5ev/4F9sgwmExiNWusiD+bqS5Y8bd+DYejk6vxzNiA4XVtIoGiliutlKF2Y/pT+aGy+B8= X-Received: by 2002:a92:c5ac:: with SMTP id r12mr10280771ilt.162.1604930920904; Mon, 09 Nov 2020 06:08:40 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201107155306.463148-1-thomas@monjalon.net> <2304322.cEvxdTIR8G@thomas> <2407553.B4KgyuXQMY@thomas> In-Reply-To: <2407553.B4KgyuXQMY@thomas> From: Jerin Jacob Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2020 19:38:24 +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 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 7:32 PM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 09/11/2020 14:35, Jerin Jacob: > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 6:29 PM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > > 09/11/2020 13:01, Jerin Jacob: > > > > Hi @Thomas Monjalon > > > > > > > > Any specific reason why you removed the static assert from octeontx2. > > > > > > I have a build failure when cross-compiling for octeontx2. > > I was wrong here. > > > I am trying the below command, I am not able to see any issue > > meson build --cross-file config/arm/arm64_octeontx2_linux_gcc > > > > 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. We will add it when really required. > >