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 1FB70A3168 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 22:45:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5FCC1E956; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 22:45:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CED11E955 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 22:45:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098409.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x9GKhN1r123759; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 16:45:34 -0400 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2vp75wy1h6-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 16 Oct 2019 16:45:34 -0400 Received: from m0098409.ppops.net (m0098409.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x9GKhkGC125338; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 16:45:34 -0400 Received: from ppma04dal.us.ibm.com (7a.29.35a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.53.41.122]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2vp75wy1gf-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 16 Oct 2019 16:45:34 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma04dal.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma04dal.us.ibm.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x9GKjDK5021812; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 20:45:33 GMT Received: from b01cxnp22035.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01cxnp22035.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.198.25]) by ppma04dal.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 2vk6f7sk25-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 16 Oct 2019 20:45:33 +0000 Received: from b01ledav006.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav006.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.111]) by b01cxnp22035.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x9GKjWTY53871078 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 16 Oct 2019 20:45:32 GMT Received: from b01ledav006.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E698AC059; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 20:45:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b01ledav006.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2ED2AC05E; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 20:45:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from davids-mbp.usor.ibm.com (unknown [9.70.84.193]) by b01ledav006.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 20:45:31 +0000 (GMT) To: David Marchand Cc: "Burakov, Anatoly" , dev References: <20190925214223.79362-1-drc@linux.vnet.ibm.com> From: David Christensen Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 13:45:31 -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=2019-10-16_08:, , 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-1910160171 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" >> An ifdef present in eal_memory.c references "RTE_ARCH_PPC64" when >> it should actually use "RTE_ARCH_PPC_64". Simple testing revealed >> that both the PPC_64 and non-PPC_64 versions of the code involved >> work, but the PPC_64 version of the code is retained to be >> consistent with other instances in the same file where mmapped >> memory is accessed in reverse order on Power platforms. > > 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. Dave