> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com>
> Sent: Monday, October 12, 2020 5:38 PM
> To: Guo, Jia <jia....@intel.com>
> Cc: Power, Ciara <ciara.po...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Xing, Beilei
> <beilei.x...@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 04/18] net/i40e: add checks for max SIMD
> bitwidth
>
> On Sat, Oct 10, 2020 at 02:07:15AM +0000, Guo, Jia wrote:
> > Hi, power
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Power, Ciara <ciara.po...@intel.com>
> > > Sent: Friday, October 9, 2020 10:03 PM
> > > To: Guo, Jia <jia....@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > > Cc: Xing, Beilei <beilei.x...@intel.com>
> > > Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 04/18] net/i40e: add checks for max SIMD
> > > bitwidth
> > >
> > > Hi Jeff,
> > >
> > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > >From: Guo, Jia <jia....@intel.com>
> > > >Sent: Friday 9 October 2020 04:03
> > > >To: Power, Ciara <ciara.po...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > > >Cc: Xing, Beilei <beilei.x...@intel.com>
> > > >Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 04/18] net/i40e: add checks for max SIMD
> > > >bitwidth
> > > >
> > > >Hi, power
> > > >
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: Power, Ciara <ciara.po...@intel.com>
> > > >> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 9:04 PM
> > > >> To: dev@dpdk.org
> > > >> Cc: Power, Ciara <ciara.po...@intel.com>; Xing, Beilei
> > > >> <beilei.x...@intel.com>; Guo, Jia <jia....@intel.com>
> > > >> Subject: [PATCH v3 04/18] net/i40e: add checks for max SIMD
> > > >> bitwidth
> > > >>
> > > >> When choosing a vector path to take, an extra condition must be
> > > >> satisfied to ensure the max SIMD bitwidth allows for the CPU
> > > >> enabled
> > > path.
> > > >>
> > > >> Cc: Beilei Xing <beilei.x...@intel.com>
> > > >> Cc: Jeff Guo <jia....@intel.com>
> > > >>
> > > >> Signed-off-by: Ciara Power <ciara.po...@intel.com>
> > > >> ---
> > > >> drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx.c | 19 +++++++++++++------
> > > >> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > > >>
> > > >> diff --git a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx.c
> > > >> b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx.c index 60b33d20a1..9b535b52fa
> > > >> 100644
> > > >> --- a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx.c
> > > >> +++ b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx.c
> > > >> @@ -3098,7 +3098,8 @@ static eth_rx_burst_t
> > > >> i40e_get_latest_rx_vec(bool
> > > >> scatter) { #if defined(RTE_ARCH_X86) &&
> > > >> defined(CC_AVX2_SUPPORT) -if
> > > >> (rte_cpu_get_flag_enabled(RTE_CPUFLAG_AVX2))
> > > >> +if (rte_cpu_get_flag_enabled(RTE_CPUFLAG_AVX2) &&
> > > >> +rte_get_max_simd_bitwidth() >=
> > > >
> > > >Nitpick: I think if consistent to keep alignment for open
> > > >parenthesis in this patch set would be better. Do you think so?
> > > >
> > >
> > > This file doesn't seem to have any if statements indented as you
> > > suggest, Some do have a double indent for the continued line as I
> > > have done here though.
> > >
> >
> > Sorry, maybe I didn't say clear, what I said is the "CHECK" as below when
> use checkpatch.pl to guaranty the patch's format.
> >
> > CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis
> > #733: FILE: drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx.c:3102:
> > + if (rte_cpu_get_flag_enabled(RTE_CPUFLAG_AVX2) &&
> > + rte_get_max_simd_bitwidth() >=
> > + RTE_MAX_256_SIMD)
> >
> Did you run checkpatch using the DPDK "checkpatches.sh" script? In that
> script there are a list of things to ignore, one of which is
> "PARENTHESIS_ALIGNMENT", so that should not be flagged here. It's also
> not flagged in patchwork by the CI system.
>
Ok, seems that parenthesis alignment had been explicit ignored even I would
prefer to make the format to be more consistent. @ power, you could choose keep
it or not if there is a coming new version, that is both fine base on the rule.
> /Bruce
