On 12/8/2023 7:24 AM, Jie Hai wrote: > On 2023/12/8 1:42, Ferruh Yigit wrote: >> On 12/7/2023 1:57 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: >>> On 12/7/2023 1:42 AM, Jie Hai wrote: >>>> Replace the use of gcc builtin __atomic_xxx intrinsics with >>>> corresponding rte_atomic_xxx optional stdatomic API. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jie Hai <haij...@huawei.com> >>>> >>> >>> <...> >>> >>>> static void >>>> @@ -643,8 +643,8 @@ hns3vf_get_push_lsc_cap(struct hns3_hw *hw) >>>> uint16_t exp = HNS3_PF_PUSH_LSC_CAP_UNKNOWN; >>>> struct hns3_vf *vf = HNS3_DEV_HW_TO_VF(hw); >>>> - __atomic_store_n(&vf->pf_push_lsc_cap, >>>> HNS3_PF_PUSH_LSC_CAP_UNKNOWN, >>>> - __ATOMIC_RELEASE); >>>> + rte_atomic_load_explicit(&vf->pf_push_lsc_cap, >>>> + HNS3_PF_PUSH_LSC_CAP_UNKNOWN, rte_memory_order_release); >>>> >>> >>> I guess intension here is to use 'rte_atomic_store_explicit()', current >>> code cause a build error [1]. >>> >>> [1] >>> https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/test-report/2023-December/525759.html >>> >>> >> Another build error is when stdatomic enabled [2]. >> >> [2] >> meson setup --werror -Denable_stdatomic=true build && ninja -C build >> >> > Hi,Ferruh, > > Thanks, and I will fix it. > > Since both the following two patches[1][2](in different patchsets) uses > __atomic_XXX, > I will keep using __atomic_XX in the patches first. > After the two patches are accepted, resend the fixed patch[3] > and change all __atomic_XX to rte_atomic_XXX. >
ack > [1][PATCH] net/hns3: fix VF multiple count on one reset > [2][PATCH] net/hns3: refactor handle mailbox function > [3][PATCH] net/hns3: use stdatomic API > > Best regards, > Jie Hai
