| Message ID | 20200217164345.6207-1-taox.zhu@intel.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted, archived |
| Delegated to: | Thomas Monjalon |
| Headers | show |
| Series |
|
| Related | show |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| ci/Intel-compilation | fail | apply issues |
| ci/travis-robot | warning | Travis build: failed |
| ci/iol-testing | success | Testing PASS |
| ci/iol-mellanox-Performance | success | Performance Testing PASS |
| ci/checkpatch | success | coding style OK |
This patch has been sent with a date in the future. Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 16:43:45 +0000 Please fix your mail setup, this triggers an error with meson in UNH CI (at least).
On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 1:39 PM <taox.zhu@intel.com> wrote: > > From: Tao Zhu <taox.zhu@intel.com> > > Change the definition of C99 style to C90 style. > compile log as below: > > otx2_mempool_ops.c: In function ‘otx2_npa_populate’: > /dpdk/drivers/mempool/octeontx2/otx2_mempool_ops.c:790:2: error: \ > ‘for’ loop initial declarations are only allowed in C99 mode > for (int i = 0; i < OTX2_L1D_NB_SETS; i++) > ^ > /dpdk/drivers/mempool/octeontx2/otx2_mempool_ops.c:790:2: \ > note: use option -std=c99 or -std=gnu99 to compile your code > /dpdk/drivers/mempool/octeontx2/otx2_mempool_ops.c: At top level: > cc1: error: unrecognized command line option \ > "-Wno-address-of-packed-member" [-Werror] > cc1: all warnings being treated as errors > make[6]: *** [otx2_mempool_ops.o] Error 1 > make[5]: *** [octeontx2] Error 2 > make[4]: *** [mempool] Error 2 > > Fixes: 9ed8e95c ("mempool/octeontx2: optimize for L1D cache architecture") > > Signed-off-by: Tao Zhu <taox.zhu@intel.com> Just for understanding purposes, Why one need to use C90 instead of C99? May I know, What environment, Do you see this issue? In any case, Reviewed-by: Jerin Jacob <jerinj@marvell.com> > --- > drivers/mempool/octeontx2/otx2_mempool_ops.c | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mempool/octeontx2/otx2_mempool_ops.c b/drivers/mempool/octeontx2/otx2_mempool_ops.c > index 6b55447..ac2d618 100644 > --- a/drivers/mempool/octeontx2/otx2_mempool_ops.c > +++ b/drivers/mempool/octeontx2/otx2_mempool_ops.c > @@ -754,6 +754,7 @@ > size_t total_elt_sz; > uint8_t set; > size_t off; > + int i; > > if (iova == RTE_BAD_IOVA) > return -EINVAL; > @@ -787,7 +788,7 @@ > otx2_npa_dbg("requested objects %"PRIu64", possible objects %"PRIu64"", > (uint64_t)max_objs, (uint64_t)(len / total_elt_sz)); > otx2_npa_dbg("L1D set distribution :"); > - for (int i = 0; i < OTX2_L1D_NB_SETS; i++) > + for (i = 0; i < OTX2_L1D_NB_SETS; i++) > otx2_npa_dbg("set[%d] : objects : %"PRIu64"", i, > distribution[i]); > > -- > 1.8.3.1 >
Jeremy, On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 12:19 PM David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com> wrote: > > This patch has been sent with a date in the future. > Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 16:43:45 +0000 > > Please fix your mail setup, this triggers an error with meson in UNH > CI (at least). Do you use the tools/pwclient script from dpdk-ci or some git-am script of yours? I can see git-am has an option to tweak the commit dates (--ignore-date). This should avoid the issue of files in the future that meson is not happy with. -- David Marchand
On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 2:06 PM Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 1:39 PM <taox.zhu@intel.com> wrote: > > > > From: Tao Zhu <taox.zhu@intel.com> > > > > Change the definition of C99 style to C90 style. > > compile log as below: > > > > otx2_mempool_ops.c: In function ‘otx2_npa_populate’: > > /dpdk/drivers/mempool/octeontx2/otx2_mempool_ops.c:790:2: error: \ > > ‘for’ loop initial declarations are only allowed in C99 mode > > for (int i = 0; i < OTX2_L1D_NB_SETS; i++) > > ^ > > /dpdk/drivers/mempool/octeontx2/otx2_mempool_ops.c:790:2: \ > > note: use option -std=c99 or -std=gnu99 to compile your code > > /dpdk/drivers/mempool/octeontx2/otx2_mempool_ops.c: At top level: > > cc1: error: unrecognized command line option \ > > "-Wno-address-of-packed-member" [-Werror] > > cc1: all warnings being treated as errors > > make[6]: *** [otx2_mempool_ops.o] Error 1 > > make[5]: *** [octeontx2] Error 2 > > make[4]: *** [mempool] Error 2 > > > > Fixes: 9ed8e95c ("mempool/octeontx2: optimize for L1D cache architecture") > > > > Signed-off-by: Tao Zhu <taox.zhu@intel.com> > > Just for understanding purposes, Why one need to use C90 instead of > C99? May I know, What environment, Do you see this issue? > In any case, > > Reviewed-by: Jerin Jacob <jerinj@marvell.com> We can see this in RHEL/Centos 7 and SLE 12 (thanks Luca). -- David Marchand
On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 9:57 AM David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com> wrote: > > Jeremy, > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 12:19 PM David Marchand > <david.marchand@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > This patch has been sent with a date in the future. > > Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 16:43:45 +0000 > > > > Please fix your mail setup, this triggers an error with meson in UNH > > CI (at least). > > Do you use the tools/pwclient script from dpdk-ci or some git-am > script of yours? We use a customized script given to us by the Intel CI team which does use git-am. > I can see git-am has an option to tweak the commit dates (--ignore-date). I can look into adding it. I've also updated our compile scripts (again) to hopefully mitigate the issue. I've also rerun the tests for this patch with those changes. > > This should avoid the issue of files in the future that meson is not happy with. > > > -- > David Marchand >
17/02/2020 19:04, Jeremy Plsek: > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 9:57 AM David Marchand > <david.marchand@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > Jeremy, > > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 12:19 PM David Marchand > > <david.marchand@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > This patch has been sent with a date in the future. > > > Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 16:43:45 +0000 > > > > > > Please fix your mail setup, this triggers an error with meson in UNH > > > CI (at least). > > > > Do you use the tools/pwclient script from dpdk-ci or some git-am > > script of yours? > > We use a customized script given to us by the Intel CI team which does > use git-am. > > > I can see git-am has an option to tweak the commit dates (--ignore-date). > > I can look into adding it. > > I've also updated our compile scripts (again) to hopefully mitigate > the issue. I've also rerun the tests for this patch with those > changes. We need to revisit how to migrate to small public scripts in dpdk-ci which can be re-used by anybody working on DPDK. Please let's start with this one: a script for applying patches from patchwork, using git-pw or git-am.
17/02/2020 14:06, Jerin Jacob: > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 1:39 PM <taox.zhu@intel.com> wrote: > > > > From: Tao Zhu <taox.zhu@intel.com> > > > > Change the definition of C99 style to C90 style. > > compile log as below: > > > > otx2_mempool_ops.c: In function ‘otx2_npa_populate’: > > /dpdk/drivers/mempool/octeontx2/otx2_mempool_ops.c:790:2: error: \ > > ‘for’ loop initial declarations are only allowed in C99 mode > > for (int i = 0; i < OTX2_L1D_NB_SETS; i++) > > ^ > > /dpdk/drivers/mempool/octeontx2/otx2_mempool_ops.c:790:2: \ > > note: use option -std=c99 or -std=gnu99 to compile your code > > /dpdk/drivers/mempool/octeontx2/otx2_mempool_ops.c: At top level: > > cc1: error: unrecognized command line option \ > > "-Wno-address-of-packed-member" [-Werror] > > cc1: all warnings being treated as errors > > make[6]: *** [otx2_mempool_ops.o] Error 1 > > make[5]: *** [octeontx2] Error 2 > > make[4]: *** [mempool] Error 2 > > > > Fixes: 9ed8e95c ("mempool/octeontx2: optimize for L1D cache architecture") > > > > Signed-off-by: Tao Zhu <taox.zhu@intel.com> > > Just for understanding purposes, Why one need to use C90 instead of > C99? May I know, What environment, Do you see this issue? > In any case, > > Reviewed-by: Jerin Jacob <jerinj@marvell.com> Applied, thanks
diff --git a/drivers/mempool/octeontx2/otx2_mempool_ops.c b/drivers/mempool/octeontx2/otx2_mempool_ops.c index 6b55447..ac2d618 100644 --- a/drivers/mempool/octeontx2/otx2_mempool_ops.c +++ b/drivers/mempool/octeontx2/otx2_mempool_ops.c @@ -754,6 +754,7 @@ size_t total_elt_sz; uint8_t set; size_t off; + int i; if (iova == RTE_BAD_IOVA) return -EINVAL; @@ -787,7 +788,7 @@ otx2_npa_dbg("requested objects %"PRIu64", possible objects %"PRIu64"", (uint64_t)max_objs, (uint64_t)(len / total_elt_sz)); otx2_npa_dbg("L1D set distribution :"); - for (int i = 0; i < OTX2_L1D_NB_SETS; i++) + for (i = 0; i < OTX2_L1D_NB_SETS; i++) otx2_npa_dbg("set[%d] : objects : %"PRIu64"", i, distribution[i]);