From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.lysator.liu.se (mail.lysator.liu.se [130.236.254.3]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 755585B16 for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 11:13:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.lysator.liu.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.lysator.liu.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEFF540018 for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 11:13:20 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail.lysator.liu.se (Postfix, from userid 1004) id D9D2640041; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 11:13:20 +0100 (CET) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on bernadotte.lysator.liu.se X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.4.1 X-Spam-Score: -0.9 Received: from [192.168.1.59] (host-90-232-59-122.mobileonline.telia.com [90.232.59.122]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.lysator.liu.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 46DFF40018; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 11:13:19 +0100 (CET) To: Alejandro Lucero , dev@dpdk.org References: <20181031172931.11894-1-alejandro.lucero@netronome.com> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Mattias_R=c3=b6nnblom?= Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 11:13:18 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20181031172931.11894-1-alejandro.lucero@netronome.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/7] fix DMA mask check 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2018 10:13:21 -0000 On 2018-10-31 18:29, Alejandro Lucero wrote: > A patchset sent introducing DMA mask checks has several critical > issues precluding apps to execute. The patchset was reviewed and > finally accepted after three versions. Obviously it did not go > through the proper testing what can be explained, at least from my > side, due to the big changes to the memory initialization code these > last months. It turns out the patchset did work with legacy memory > and I'm afraid that was mainly my testing. > > This patchset should solve the main problems reported: > > - deadlock duriing initialization > - segmentation fault with secondary processes > The deadlock I reported[1] no longer occur after applying this patch set. [1] https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102