On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 06:16:36PM +0530, Santosh Shukla wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 4:54 AM, Stephen Hemminger
> <stephen at networkplumber.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 17:32:38 +0530
> > Santosh Shukla <sshukla at mvista.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Santosh Shukla <sshukla at mvista.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > virtio_recv_pkts_vec and other virtio vector friend apis are written for
> >> > sse/avx
> >> > instructions. For arm64 in particular, virtio vector implementation does
> >> > not
> >> > exist(todo).
> >> >
> >> > So virtio pmd driver wont build for targets like i686, arm64. By making
> >> > RTE_VIRTIO_INC_VECTOR=n, Driver can build for non-sse/avx targets and
> >> > will work
> >> > in non-vectored virtio mode.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Santosh Shukla <sshukla at mvista.com>
> >> > ---
> >>
> >> Ping?
> >>
> >> any review / comment on this patch much appreciated. Thanks
> >
> > The patches I posted (and were ignored by Intel) to support indirect
> > and any layout should have much bigger performance gain than all this
> > low level SSE bit twiddling.
> >
>
> I little confused - do we care for this patch?
Santosh,
As a reviewer that still have a lot of work to do, I don't have the
bandwidth to review _all_ your patches carefully __once__. That is
to say, I will only comment when I find something should be commented,
from time to time when I put more thoughts there. For other patches
I've no comment, it could mean that it's okay to me so far, or I'm
not quite sure it's okay but I don't find anything obvious wrong.
Hence, I put no comments so far. But later, when get time, I will
revisit them, think more, and either ACK it, or comment it.
So, you could simply keep those patches unchanged if they received
no comments, and fix other comments, and send out a new version at
anytime that is proper to you.
--yliu
