On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 10:47:53AM +, Hunt, David wrote:
> On 02/11/2015 06:32, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> >On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 04:28:25PM +, Hunt, David wrote:
>
> --snip--
>
> >
> >Hi Jan and Dave,
> >
> >I have reviewed your patches for arm[64] support. Please check the
> >review comments.
On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 10:47:53 +
"Hunt, David" wrote:
> On 02/11/2015 06:32, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 04:28:25PM +, Hunt, David wrote:
>
> --snip--
>
> >
> > Hi Jan and Dave,
> >
> > I have reviewed your patches for arm[64] support. Please check the
> > review comme
On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 15:04:14 +
"Hunt, David" wrote:
> On 02/11/2015 13:17, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> -snip--
> > If am not wrong existing rte_cpu_get_flag_enabled() implementation
> > should be broken in your platform also for arm64. as I could see only
> > AT_HWCAP
> > not AT_HWCAP2 and AT_HWCAP
On 02/11/2015 15:13, Jan Viktorin wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 15:04:14 +
> "Hunt, David" wrote:
>
>> On 02/11/2015 13:17, Jerin Jacob wrote:
>> -snip--
>>> If am not wrong existing rte_cpu_get_flag_enabled() implementation
>>> should be broken in your platform also for arm64. as I could see o
On 02/11/2015 13:17, Jerin Jacob wrote:
-snip--
> If am not wrong existing rte_cpu_get_flag_enabled() implementation
> should be broken in your platform also for arm64. as I could see only AT_HWCAP
> not AT_HWCAP2 and AT_HWCAP is 0x7 that means your platform also
> follows
>
> http://lxr.free-elec
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 04:28:25PM +, Hunt, David wrote:
> On 30/10/2015 16:11, Jan Viktorin wrote:
> >Hmm, I see. It's good to fix this in the generated e-mails between
> >format-patch
> > and send-email calls. I always review those to be sure they meet my
> expectations ;).
> >Anyway, it is
On 02/11/2015 06:32, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 04:28:25PM +, Hunt, David wrote:
--snip--
>
> Hi Jan and Dave,
>
> I have reviewed your patches for arm[64] support. Please check the
> review comments.
Hi Jerin,
I'm looking at the comments now, and working on getting the su
Hmm, I see. It's good to fix this in the generated e-mails between format-patch
and send-email calls. I always review those to be sure they meet my
expectations ;).
Anyway, it is not clear, what has changed in the v3. Just the rte_cycles? You
should explain that at least in the patch. Bett
On 30/10/2015 16:11, Jan Viktorin wrote:
> Hmm, I see. It's good to fix this in the generated e-mails between
> format-patch
> and send-email calls. I always review those to be sure they meet my
expectations ;).
> Anyway, it is not clear, what has changed in the v3. Just the rte_cycles?
> You sh
Signed-off-by: David Hunt
---
app/test/test_cpuflags.c | 13 +++--
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/app/test/test_cpuflags.c b/app/test/test_cpuflags.c
index 557458f..1689048 100644
--- a/app/test/test_cpuflags.c
+++ b/app/test/test_cpuflags.c
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
2015-10-30 17:11, Jan Viktorin:
> Anyway, it is not clear, what has changed in the v3. Just the rte_cycles?
> You should explain that at least in the patch.
> Better to keep some history in each single commit (are there any rules in
> dpdk for this? Just look how they do in kernel).
The rule
11 matches
Mail list logo
