From patchwork Fri Oct 30 16:11:06 2015 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Jan Viktorin X-Patchwork-Id: 8449 Return-Path: X-Original-To: patchwork@dpdk.org Delivered-To: patchwork@dpdk.org Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 663DA9208; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 17:11:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from wes1-so1.wedos.net (wes1-so1.wedos.net [46.28.106.15]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3764C9204 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 17:11:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (dynamic-109-81-211-160.ipv4.broadband.iol.cz [109.81.211.160]) by wes1-so1.wedos.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3nnTCG5CjYzq3; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 17:11:06 +0100 (CET) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: BlackBerry Email (10.3.2.2639) Message-ID: <20151030161106.4657232.16920.465@rehivetech.com> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 17:11:06 +0100 From: Jan Viktorin In-Reply-To: <5633798B.2050708@intel.com> References: <1446212826-19425-7-git-send-email-david.hunt@intel.com> <5633798B.2050708@intel.com> To: "Hunt, David" Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 6/6] test: add checks for cpu flags on armv8 X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Hmm, I see. It's good to fix this in the generated e-mails between format-patch and send-email calls. I always review those to be sure they meet my expectations ;). Anyway, it is not clear, what has changed in the v3. Just the rte_cycles? You should explain that at least in the 0000 patch. Better to keep some history in each single commit (are there any rules in dpdk for this? Just look how they do in kernel). I'll test the patchset in qemu anyway... so will probably send tested-by. I've put this conversation to mailing list as I cannot see any reason why it is not CC'd there... Jan Viktorin RehiveTech Sent from a mobile device   Původní zpráva   Od: Hunt, David Odesláno: pátek, 30. října 2015 15:07 Komu: Jan Viktorin Předmět: Fwd: [PATCH v3 6/6] test: add checks for cpu flags on armv8 Jan, I had gone to the trouble of adding a "Reviewed-by" line in all the commit messages for each patch in the patch set, as well as addressing the comment about the armv8 files being in the arm dir. However, the 'git format-patch' seems to have stripped out the "Reviewed-by" line for some reason. If you are happy with the latest patch set, could you reply and maybe say something like "series Reviewed-by..."? Thanks for your help in this. Regards, Dave. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [PATCH v3 6/6] test: add checks for cpu flags on armv8 Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:47:06 +0000 From: David Hunt To: david.hunt@intel.com Signed-off-by: David Hunt --- app/test/test_cpuflags.c | 13 +++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/app/test/test_cpuflags.c b/app/test/test_cpuflags.c index 557458f..1689048 100644 --- a/app/test/test_cpuflags.c +++ b/app/test/test_cpuflags.c @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -/*- +/* * BSD LICENSE * * Copyright(c) 2010-2014 Intel Corporation. All rights reserved. @@ -115,9 +115,18 @@ test_cpuflags(void) CHECK_FOR_FLAG(RTE_CPUFLAG_ICACHE_SNOOP); #endif -#if defined(RTE_ARCH_ARM) +#if defined(RTE_ARCH_ARM) || defined(RTE_ARCH_ARM64) + printf("Checking for Floating Point:\t\t"); + CHECK_FOR_FLAG(RTE_CPUFLAG_FPA); + printf("Check for NEON:\t\t"); CHECK_FOR_FLAG(RTE_CPUFLAG_NEON); + + printf("Checking for ARM32 mode:\t\t"); + CHECK_FOR_FLAG(RTE_CPUFLAG_AARCH32); + + printf("Checking for ARM64 mode:\t\t"); + CHECK_FOR_FLAG(RTE_CPUFLAG_AARCH64); #endif #if defined(RTE_ARCH_X86_64) || defined(RTE_ARCH_I686)