From: Taras Kondratiuk taras.kondrat...@linaro.org
Signed-off-by: Maxim Uvarov maxim.uva...@linaro.org
---
scripts/checkpatch.pl | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
index b5e8c93..bc13831 100755
---
Bill, I think this patch is also ok to go in. Right?
Maxim.
On 04/30/2015 12:24, alexandru.badici...@linaro.org wrote:
From: Alexandru Badicioiu alexandru.badici...@linaro.org
Signed-off-by: Alexandru Badicioiu alexandru.badici...@linaro.org
---
helper/include/odp/helper/udp.h | 35
My current concerns is w.r.t the ipsec example use case only. Usages of atomic
queues may be demonstrated by other specific example.
Also even if we use atomic queues for sequence number it cannot guarantee the
ingress order preservation if incoming packets are picked up by different cores
and
Patch looks good. Validation test passed. Need one more review.
Thanks,
Maxim.
On 04/24/2015 17:10, Ola Liljedahl wrote:
Use plain buffers for timeouts. Store the timeout header in the buffer
data area. This simplifies re-use on other platforms where the event
header cannot be arbitrarily
Take CU init commit.
CUnit names all it's functions with CU_. For check patch is
is camelcase, which is not proper odp syntax. This patch
turns off camelcase warnings for functions/types beginning
with CU_.
Reviewed-by: Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org
Signed-off-by: Maxim
On 05/13/2015 00:32, Mike Holmes wrote:
The helpers need to be tested independently from the ODP API, create a
folder to contain helper tests, adding tests for process and thread
creation.
Signed-off-by: Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org
---
Makefile.am | 2 +-
configure.ac
HI,
What is the plan to re-introduce the flow signature based distribution
APIs in next version of ODP?
Regards,
Hemant
-Original Message-
From: lng-odp-boun...@lists.linaro.org
[mailto:lng-odp-boun...@lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of Balasubramanian Manoharan
Sent: Wednesday,
Merged,
Thank you,
Maxim.
On 05/05/2015 11:14, Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin wrote:
odp_buffer_encode_handle initializes only the useful bits but not all of them
which causes error in valgrind:
==1192== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)
==1192==at 0x40CB01:
Update checkpatch. Add our local fixes. Plus fix lenght limit for log functions.
Thanks,
Maxim.
Maxim Uvarov (2):
checkpatch: update to linux 4.1 rc-3
checkpatch: remove cunit warnings
Taras Kondratiuk (1):
checkpatch: remove line length limit for odp log functions
scripts/checkpatch.pl
For linux-generic it breaks classification test:
Test: classification_pktio_test ...FAILED
1. classification/odp_classification_tests.c:513 - queue ==
queue_list[CLS_DEFAULT]
2. classification/odp_classification_tests.c:563 - queue ==
queue_list[CLS_ERROR]
Maxim.
On 05/08/2015
My understanding is that the Atomic queues are expected to maintain
the ingress order and not on the order in which the packets were
en-queued into the queue. So in the above example atomic queues will
preserve the ingress order even if the packets are submitted by
different cores in different
On 05/12/2015 20:52, Mike Holmes wrote:
I dont think you can implement a mandatory ODP API based on an
optional helper api.
The ring implementation should be inside the linux-generic
implementation if you want to use it, other implementations can copy
it as they do now from linux-generic for
Merged,
Maxim.
On 05/11/2015 19:24, Bill Fischofer wrote:
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin
nmo...@kalray.eu mailto:nmo...@kalray.eu wrote:
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin nmo...@kalray.eu
mailto:nmo...@kalray.eu
Reviewed-by: Bill Fischofer
Merged,
Maxim.
On 05/04/2015 19:05, Bill Fischofer wrote:
On Monday, May 4, 2015, Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin nmo...@kalray.eu
mailto:nmo...@kalray.eu wrote:
The test assumes that cpu_id ranges from 0 to n CPU - 1 which is
not necessary true on all archs.
Meanwhile thread ids
Maxim,
this is an old one - there's a v1 submitted addressing a compile warning.
Alex
On 13 May 2015 at 12:21, Maxim Uvarov maxim.uva...@linaro.org wrote:
Bill, I think this patch is also ok to go in. Right?
Maxim.
On 04/30/2015 12:24, alexandru.badici...@linaro.org wrote:
From:
Hi,
These APIs are in the list of changes required for classification and
will be introduced in the next version of ODP.
Regards,
Bala
On 13 May 2015 at 15:12, Agrawal Hemant hem...@freescale.com wrote:
HI,
What is the plan to re-introduce the flow signature based
distribution APIs
Thanks. I'll look into this. When I checked before everything was passing
so perhaps a rebase is needed.
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 4:50 AM, Maxim Uvarov maxim.uva...@linaro.org
wrote:
For linux-generic it breaks classification test:
Test: classification_pktio_test ...FAILED
1.
A good topic to be covered in depth at the upcoming June Sprint.
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 5:57 AM, Bala Manoharan bala.manoha...@linaro.org
wrote:
Hi,
These APIs are in the list of changes required for classification and
will be introduced in the next version of ODP.
Regards,
Bala
On 13
On 2015-05-12 17:32, Mike Holmes wrote:
The helpers need to be tested independently from the ODP API, create a
folder to contain helper tests, adding tests for process and thread
creation.
Signed-off-by: Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org
Reviewed-by: Christophe Milard
On 05/13/2015 13:23, Alexandru Badicioiu wrote:
Maxim,
this is an old one - there's a v1 submitted addressing a compile warning.
Alex
Ah, ok, thanks.
Maxim.
On 13 May 2015 at 12:21, Maxim Uvarov maxim.uva...@linaro.org
mailto:maxim.uva...@linaro.org wrote:
Bill, I think this patch is
Hi,
I'm not sure I've sent this to the right list, who should maintain
check-odp?
Zoli
On 11/05/15 17:40, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
These patches make possible to compile with already checked out local
repositories, so CI and developers can use the same script. E.g: I'm
using it this way:
On 05/13/2015 15:04, Bill Fischofer wrote:
Thanks. I'll look into this. When I checked before everything was
passing so perhaps a rebase is needed.
I applied it to the master branch, not sure if it works for api-next.
Maxim.
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 4:50 AM, Maxim Uvarov
Tested new check patch and in general it's more strict for code style
and most of warnings are reasonable.
Also now it will generate following checks:
CHECK: Comparison to NULL could be written new_udat
#130: FILE: test/validation/odp_packet.c:562:
+CU_ASSERT(new_udat != NULL);
I.e.
On 13 May 2015 at 03:48, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
petri.savolai...@nokia.com wrote:
Hi,
As discussed yesterday, we’ll keep current api and impl string calls and
potentially add numeric implementation version calls after v1.1. The
problem there is to define (== force) common
Lazy parsing defers parsing until the results are actually needed.
This allows applications that do their own parsing and never reference
ODP parse results to avoid the overhead of SW parsing.
Signed-off-by: Bill Fischofer bill.fischo...@linaro.org
---
Changes in v6:
- Added lazy parse hook in
No, it was a legit failure. I posted v6 of the patch to correct that. The
issue is that the classifier was directly accessing internal packet data
for performance, so it needed its own lazy parse hook. All should pass now.
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Maxim Uvarov maxim.uva...@linaro.org
On 2015-05-13 13:15, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
Hi,
I'm not sure I've sent this to the right list, who should maintain
check-odp?
For now its me... Sorry for the late reply, I've been away for a couple
of days.
I've pushed this patchset with minor tweaks in patch 5 and 6.
Moved the row with ...git
On 2015-05-12 16:43, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
So callers can add extra params to configure
Signed-off-by: Zoltan Kiss zoltan.k...@linaro.org
---
helper/generic | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/helper/generic b/helper/generic
index f49f509..aa1b10a 100644
Hi All,
I am new to ODP.
I have an ARM A57 based platform running Fedora 21 with two Ethernet ports.
I'd like to set up ODP to forward packets between two Ethernet ports.
Appreciate if you can show me how to get started.
Thanks,
Charlie
___
lng-odp
Have you looked at the l2fwd example app in test/performance/odp_l2fwd.c ?
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Li, Charlie charlie...@amd.com wrote:
Hi All,
I am new to ODP.
I have an ARM A57 based platform running Fedora 21 with two Ethernet ports.
I’d like to set up ODP to forward
On 13 May 2015 at 05:03, Maxim Uvarov maxim.uva...@linaro.org wrote:
On 05/12/2015 20:52, Mike Holmes wrote:
I dont think you can implement a mandatory ODP API based on an optional
helper api.
The ring implementation should be inside the linux-generic implementation
if you want to use it,
On 13 May 2015 at 11:19, Marshall Guillory marshall.guill...@linaro.org
wrote:
Dear ODP Community,
The ODP 1.2.0 tag
https://git.linaro.org/lng/odp.git/tag/refs/tags/v1.2.0.0
Do you mean 1.1.0 ?
And the link is broken, it should be this I think
On 13 May 2015 at 12:19, Maxim Uvarov maxim.uva...@linaro.org wrote:
Patch looks good. Validation test passed. Need one more review.
Thanks. I did this primarily for KS2 being able to use the linux-generic
timer implementation without any changes. I am waiting for Taras to verify
this.
-- Ola
On 13 May 2015 at 11:51, Agarwal Nikhil Agarwal
nikhil.agar...@freescale.com wrote:
*My current concerns is w.r.t the ipsec example use case only. Usages of
atomic queues may be demonstrated by other specific example. *
*Also even if we use atomic queues for sequence number it cannot
Dear ODP Community,
The ODP 1.2.0 tag
https://git.linaro.org/lng/odp.git/tag/refs/tags/v1.2.0.0 was released
today. I have also updated the ODP roadmap page to account for current
planning states.
http://www.opendataplane.org/status/opendataplane-roadmap/
--
Sincerely,
Marshall Guillory
On 12 May 2015 at 19:28, Stuart Haslam stuart.has...@linaro.org wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 09:02:18AM +0200, Christophe Milard wrote:
On 11 May 2015 at 20:23, Stuart Haslam stuart.has...@linaro.org wrote:
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 12:48:24PM +0200, Christophe Milard wrote:
Hopefully
Hi,
As discussed yesterday, we’ll keep current api and impl string calls and
potentially add numeric implementation version calls after v1.1. The problem
there is to define (== force) common version numbering scheme for all
implementation.
E.g. if some implementation wants to include a hash
37 matches
Mail list logo
