23/02/2022 12:20, Ferruh Yigit: > On 2/23/2022 10:42 AM, Morten Brørup wrote: > > +Thomas, you may be interested in this discussion about applications using > > an uint64_t bit mask to identify active lcores. > > > >> From: Ferruh Yigit [mailto:ferruh.yi...@intel.com] > >> Sent: Wednesday, 23 February 2022 11.03 > >> > >> On 2/23/2022 7:17 AM, Morten Brørup wrote: > >>>> From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:step...@networkplumber.org] > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, 22 February 2022 17.03 > > > > [...] > > > >>>> > >>>> DPDK now supports > 64 lcores. So all code using/assuming a 64 bit > >> mask > >>>> is broken. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Good point. Is there a TODO-list where such a general review request > >> can be filed, or should we just file it as a system-wide bug in > >> Bugzilla? > >>> > >>> Nonetheless, I think this one-line fix should be accepted as a short > >> term solution. > >>> > >> > >> Hi Morten, > >> > >> I suspect there can be more places that testpmd assumes > >> max core number is 64, someone needs to spend time to > >> analyze and fix it. > > > > My point exactly. Someone needs to spend time to analyze all DPDK libraries > > and applications, and fix it where appropriate. Where do we register this > > required effort, so it can be picked up by someone? > > > > testpmd is an application and it has its own restrictions, > I *assumed* libraries are safe and restriction is only in > testpmd, but may be better to verify this as well. > > > Also, it should probably be mentioned as a known bug in the 22.03 release > > notes.
There are known bugs and things to verify. Known bugs should be in bugzilla + release notes. Verification tasks are difficult to track because there is no point where we can be sure that things are fully verified. Instead I think such kind of verification should be managed as permanent tasks. Do you have a tool or process in mind?
