From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 773B9A0579 for ; Mon, 3 May 2021 16:21:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D91940F35; Mon, 3 May 2021 16:21:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0B2A4014E for ; Mon, 3 May 2021 16:21:41 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1620051701; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=iX+L58v88KnHh4eNIsrJ+DFBe2g+K8yzemmKwiaunqE=; b=Yh1TI+xOMXjJIF6n7QlxpYA69+JwG2scBVZmvRumXTAaKhm4c9GyQT4ufLS4SpIifarGvz CKFuJljlhSOD9IfEcgS0WwGY6yB3V+dhsx1vLX0zz0lhUwE2BwqDSQkcBDQOMcWSJ4P4SV urwlkYGh474yPNjP1Sfm+HsQZIgb96U= Received: from mail-vk1-f199.google.com (mail-vk1-f199.google.com [209.85.221.199]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-352-QjU3oGNzNB-6HycodQ6VsA-1; Mon, 03 May 2021 10:21:37 -0400 X-MC-Unique: QjU3oGNzNB-6HycodQ6VsA-1 Received: by mail-vk1-f199.google.com with SMTP id x5-20020a1fae050000b02901d9ecb9b8d3so739670vke.20 for ; Mon, 03 May 2021 07:21:37 -0700 (PDT) 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=iX+L58v88KnHh4eNIsrJ+DFBe2g+K8yzemmKwiaunqE=; b=oUa9PT4T9z8+BeL6MlTQUe6d27g0hPs57WQVkFXhM+cOFyNAEli2Vktirk3Hp8LgE5 A0Nzstjib/0cPvMg59cu0Ai83UMLOKH9vD3CNxvZTWRPlrWYWAtnqnrFrwtkX5L3eG2L oO0EQ+3NbSfI4Dj3KS466PitOxrj2OlMIjb2DTKKy7ak3SVTnBsbm1h6GY/4g8YXBhfs 9NTJB0cLQjY02D6RUY6wHyAfmT6DDSLvQuphwhKsN5RhHVxPv0Lj/22szCxHvvQQOTQJ uB8sOyGbj3Ry9g/6Uso9+SyNF4iLRdvdBeexRAidhPUAja49DRkOhTbXYBqwdjhbXkeD YRZw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530YU1o0r3ZQ5mtVvW3nHitGWb3jpS0Xf5Dn0KytsSZpxGUdupJO 9y5RUhFgrORh3XIoan2Lv1okDigcoKZwG3GOZO8Obb9BbSim1MQmT7QICyTOOAG2/n4Hp1gZECi Iz/1JEcrVw07t+DGwPVV7ROw= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:5682:: with SMTP id k124mr8074813vkb.20.1620051697201; Mon, 03 May 2021 07:21:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzSwpoRoXakPHbAG659PyphrUPQP/TzCEOQ1o/sIe6TtuKK2zYMJ+pN4EaZ6ubpglOFUfXY1/BGH3pW+DCSwA4= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:5682:: with SMTP id k124mr8074769vkb.20.1620051696930; Mon, 03 May 2021 07:21:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210412082901.652736-1-kda@semihalf.com> In-Reply-To: <20210412082901.652736-1-kda@semihalf.com> From: David Marchand Date: Mon, 3 May 2021 16:21:25 +0200 Message-ID: To: Luca Boccassi , Christian Ehrhardt Cc: Olivier Matz , dev , dpdk stable , Kevin Traynor , Thomas Monjalon , Stanislaw Kardach Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=dmarchan@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/3] add lock-free stack support discovery X-BeenThere: stable@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: patches for DPDK stable branches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: stable-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "stable" On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 10:29 AM Stanislaw Kardach wrote: > > The lock-free stack implementation (RTE_STACK_F_LF) is supported only on a > subset of platforms, namely x86_64 and arm64. Platforms supporting 128b atomics > have to opt-in to a generic or C11 implementations. All other platforms use a > stubbed implementation for push/pop operations which are basically NOPs. > However rte_stack_create() will not fail and application can proceed assuming > it has a working lock-free stack. > > This means that among other things the stack_lf fast and perf tests will fail > as if implementation is wrong (which one can argue is). Therefore this patchset > tries to give user a way to check whether a lock_free is supported or not both > at compile time (build flag) and at runtime (ENOTSUP errno in rte_stack_create). > > I have added cc to stable@dpdk.org because check-git-log.sh suggested it. I'm > not sure if adding a binary compatible change to API is worth stable@dpdk.org. > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org The issue was hit while porting to a new architecture. The feature is broken in existing stable releases and it won't get fixed by this change. I'd rather not backport it. Opinions? -- David Marchand