On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 14:49:12 +0100 Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote:
> 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? > > Agree take the fix for now. Since many places use a mask of cpus and/or ports. It would be good to have common code for handling this.
