30/10/2020 11:32, Jerin Jacob: > McDaniel, Timothy <timothy.mcdan...@intel.com> wrote: > > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > > 30/10/2020 10:43, Timothy McDaniel: > > > > - note that the code still uses its private byte-encoded versions of > > > > umonitor/umwait, rather than the new functions in the power > > > > patch that are built on top of those intrinsics. This is intentional. > > > > > > Why? Now these intrinsics are available in the main branch. > > > We should avoid duplicating such code. > > > > I had asked that the low level intrinsics (UMWAIT/UMONITOR) > > be split out so that DLB/DLB2 could use them instead > > of its own private byte-encoded versions, > > but instead we have these wrappers that call the low level > > intrinsics. Those wrappers introduce additional overhead > > that is not required for DLB/DLB2. > > I have a meeting with Ma Liang on Monday to discuss.
Why did not you tell it on the mailing list? It would have prevented from merging a wrong/useless API. I am now convinced that the hard push to get those intrinsics which started with a lack of communication (no roadmap, no Cc, no reply) is really a bad story in the community process. > Then why we merged the EAL patches? The all-purpose was to use this by > other subsystems. If it is only for the power library then we should > make specific to the power library. I agree with you Jerin. > Thomas, Should I take this series in eventdev > or I need to wait to sort out this? I think you could merge those patches and I revert the EAL ones. In any case, I won't merge any more patch about power monitor in this release. I don't like swimming in the fog.
