Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: fix 64bit address alignment in 32-bit builds

2017-04-28 Thread Bruce Richardson
On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:56:54AM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 10:32:03 +0100, Bruce Richardson > wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:21:27AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 28/04/2017 11:03, Bruce Richardson: > > > > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 10:56:56AM +0200,

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: fix 64bit address alignment in 32-bit builds

2017-04-28 Thread Olivier Matz
Hi, On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 10:32:03 +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote: > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:21:27AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 28/04/2017 11:03, Bruce Richardson: > > > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 10:56:56AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > 28/04/2017 10:15, Bruce Richardson: > >

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: fix 64bit address alignment in 32-bit builds

2017-04-28 Thread Bruce Richardson
On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:21:27AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 28/04/2017 11:03, Bruce Richardson: > > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 10:56:56AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 28/04/2017 10:15, Bruce Richardson: > > > > On i686 builds, the uint64_t type is 64-bits in size but is aligned to > > >

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: fix 64bit address alignment in 32-bit builds

2017-04-28 Thread Thomas Monjalon
28/04/2017 11:03, Bruce Richardson: > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 10:56:56AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 28/04/2017 10:15, Bruce Richardson: > > > On i686 builds, the uint64_t type is 64-bits in size but is aligned to > > > 32-bits only. This causes mbuf fields for rearm_data to not be 16-byte >

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: fix 64bit address alignment in 32-bit builds

2017-04-28 Thread Bruce Richardson
On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 10:56:56AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 28/04/2017 10:15, Bruce Richardson: > > On i686 builds, the uint64_t type is 64-bits in size but is aligned to > > 32-bits only. This causes mbuf fields for rearm_data to not be 16-byte > > aligned on 32-bit builds, which causes err

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: fix 64bit address alignment in 32-bit builds

2017-04-28 Thread Thomas Monjalon
28/04/2017 10:15, Bruce Richardson: > On i686 builds, the uint64_t type is 64-bits in size but is aligned to > 32-bits only. This causes mbuf fields for rearm_data to not be 16-byte > aligned on 32-bit builds, which causes errors with some vector PMDs which > expect the rearm data to be aligned as

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: fix 64bit address alignment in 32-bit builds

2017-04-28 Thread Bruce Richardson
On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 09:15:51AM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote: > On i686 builds, the uint64_t type is 64-bits in size but is aligned to > 32-bits only. This causes mbuf fields for rearm_data to not be 16-byte > aligned on 32-bit builds, which causes errors with some vector PMDs which > expect th

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: fix 64bit address alignment in 32-bit builds

2017-04-28 Thread Bruce Richardson
On i686 builds, the uint64_t type is 64-bits in size but is aligned to 32-bits only. This causes mbuf fields for rearm_data to not be 16-byte aligned on 32-bit builds, which causes errors with some vector PMDs which expect the rearm data to be aligned as on 64-bit. Given that we cannot use the ext