On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 9:44 AM Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 9/25/2019 10:42 PM, David Christensen wrote:
> > 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
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 6:56 PM David Christensen
wrote:
>
> 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 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 wit
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 6:18 PM Burakov, Anatoly
wrote:
>
> On 16-Oct-19 9:45 PM, David Christensen wrote:
> >>> 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 vers
On 16-Oct-19 9:45 PM, David Christensen wrote:
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 retaine
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 s
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 11:42 PM David Christensen
wrote:
>
> 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
On 9/25/2019 10:42 PM, David Christensen wrote:
> 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
8 matches
Mail list logo