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 17325A317C for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 18:56:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE28F1EA52; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 18:56:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2DDA1EA42 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 18:55:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098399.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x9HGpqiR008676; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 12:55:57 -0400 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2vpuu1139j-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 17 Oct 2019 12:55:57 -0400 Received: from m0098399.ppops.net (m0098399.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x9HGrK4t012779; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 12:55:57 -0400 Received: from ppma02wdc.us.ibm.com (aa.5b.37a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.55.91.170]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2vpuu1138y-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 17 Oct 2019 12:55:57 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma02wdc.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma02wdc.us.ibm.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x9HGsifO011484; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 16:55:56 GMT Received: from b01cxnp22033.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01cxnp22033.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.198.23]) by ppma02wdc.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 2vk6f7qgvf-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 17 Oct 2019 16:55:56 +0000 Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.108]) by b01cxnp22033.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x9HGtsdj47186358 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 17 Oct 2019 16:55:54 GMT Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AEA6B2066; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 16:55:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46E27B205F; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 16:55:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from davids-mbp.usor.ibm.com (unknown [9.70.85.35]) by b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 16:55:54 +0000 (GMT) To: David Marchand , "Burakov, Anatoly" Cc: dev References: <20190925214223.79362-1-drc@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <2b23f288-242e-b280-4ec5-c790e777c4fc@intel.com> From: David Christensen Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 09:55:52 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-10-17_05:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1908290000 definitions=main-1910170150 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" >>>> 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 systems. >>> >>> With the ifdef fixed, the core walks the list in the reverse direction >>> 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 in >>> the reverse direction for Power systems. It might be something specific >>> to Power 8 systems which I'm not actually supporting on DPDK, only the >>> 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. Dave