20/10/2020 16:17, David Hunt:
> On 20/10/2020 3:01 PM, David Hunt wrote:
> > On 20/10/2020 8:35 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >> 20/10/2020 04:49, Ruifeng Wang:
> >>> From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>
> >>>> 15/10/2020 14:04, Anatoly Burakov:
> >>>>> +/**
> >>>>> + * This function is not supported on ARM.
> >>>>> + */
> >>>>> +static inline void
> >>>>> +rte_power_monitor(const volatile void *p, const uint64_t
> >>>> expected_value,
> >>>>> + const uint64_t value_mask, const uint64_t
> >>>>> tsc_timestamp,
> >>>>> + const uint8_t data_sz) {
> >>>>> + RTE_SET_USED(p);
> >>>>> + RTE_SET_USED(expected_value);
> >>>>> + RTE_SET_USED(value_mask);
> >>>>> + RTE_SET_USED(tsc_timestamp);
> >>>>> + RTE_SET_USED(data_sz);
> >>>>> +}
> >>>> Are you sure it cannot be partially supported with WFE instruction?
> >>>>
> >>> Armv8 WFE instruction can support monitoring of specific address for
> >>> changes,
> >>> but not monitoring of TSC timestamp.
> >> So it is a partial support.
> >>
> >> We must try hard to unify architectures support
> >> to avoid #ifdef everywhere.
> >>
> >> I don't agree with how are managed new instructions recently.
> >> Please look further.
> >>
> >
> > Hi Thomas,
> >
> > We believe this is ready for -rc1, can we discuss this with the
> > technical board before the RC1 tag is applied?
> >
>
> Hi Thomas,
> By way of further follow-up, here are the reasons why we believe
> it's ready for merge.
>
> There are 18 Acks for the 10 patches, with the two critical patches
> getting 4 acks each.
> These acks are from ARM, Marvell, IBM and Intel.
> There have been 7 revisions, with quite a lot of discussion, and all
> comments have been addressed and Ack'd.
> From what I can see, the community are in agreement that this patch
> should be merged.
The problem is that I don't agree,
and I feel you tried to avoid comments from others at the beginning.
Now I don't want to spend more time on it before tagging -rc1.
Next time, you'll make sure to Cc and reply everybody.
