On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 6:18 PM Burakov, Anatoly <anatoly.bura...@intel.com> 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 versions of the code involved > >>> work, but the PPC_64 version of the code is retained to be > >>> consistent with other instances in the same file where mmapped > >>> memory is accessed in reverse order on Power platforms. > >> > >> 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 with testpmd and DPDK pktgen applications on Power systems. > > > > With the ifdef fixed, the core walks the list in the reverse direction > > as intended, the code still worked (i.e. no errors or problems were > > observed in the same test applications). > > > > I'm not completely familiar with why memseg lists must be traversed in > > the reverse direction for Power systems. It might be something specific > > to Power 8 systems which I'm not actually supporting on DPDK, only the > > Power 9 systems that I use for for development and testing. > > > > Dave > > > > If the code makes no difference anyway, should we just take it out so?
+1 :-) -- David Marchand
