From: Daniel Gregory <daniel.gregory@bytedance.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Cc: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.wang@arm.com>,
dev@dpdk.org, Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@bytedance.com>,
Liang Ma <liangma@bytedance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] eal/arm: replace RTE_BUILD_BUG on non-constant
Date: Thu, 9 May 2024 12:11:50 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240509111150.GA2730096@ste-uk-lab-gw> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240503180236.3dd0ee2c@hermes.local>
On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 06:02:36PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Thu, 2 May 2024 15:21:16 +0100
> Daniel Gregory <daniel.gregory@bytedance.com> wrote:
>
> > The ARM implementation of rte_pause uses RTE_BUILD_BUG_ON to check
> > memorder, which is not constant. This causes compile errors when it is
> > enabled with RTE_ARM_USE_WFE. eg.
> >
> > ../lib/eal/arm/include/rte_pause_64.h: In function ‘rte_wait_until_equal_16’:
> > ../lib/eal/include/rte_common.h:530:56: error: expression in static assertion is not constant
> > 530 | #define RTE_BUILD_BUG_ON(condition) do { static_assert(!(condition), #condition); } while (0)
> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~
> > ../lib/eal/arm/include/rte_pause_64.h:156:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘RTE_BUILD_BUG_ON’
> > 156 | RTE_BUILD_BUG_ON(memorder != rte_memory_order_acquire &&
> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > This has been the case since the switch to C11 assert (537caad2). Fix
> > the compile errors by replacing the check with an RTE_ASSERT.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Gregory <daniel.gregory@bytedance.com>
>
> The only calls to rte_wait_until_equal_16 in upstream code
> are in the test_bbdev_perf.c and test_timer.c. Looks like
> these test never got fixed to use rte_memory_order instead of __ATOMIC_ defines.
Apologies, the commit message could make it clearer, but this is also an
issue for rte_wait_until_equal_32 and rte_wait_until_equal_64.
rte_wait_until_equal_32 is used in a dozen or so lock tests with the old
__ATOMIC_ defines, as well as rte_ring_generic_pvt.h and
rte_ring_c11_pvt.h, where it's used with the new rte_memorder_order
values. Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't the static assertions in
rte_stdatomic.h ensure that mixed usage doesn't cause any issues, even
if using the older __ATOMIC_ defines isn't ideal?
> And there should be a CI test for ARM that enables the WFE code at least
> to ensure it works!
Yes, that could've caught this sooner.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-05-09 11:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-05-02 14:21 [PATCH] eal/arm: replace RTE_BUILD_BUG on non-constant Daniel Gregory
2024-05-02 16:20 ` Stephen Hemminger
2024-05-02 17:44 ` Daniel Gregory
2024-05-02 18:27 ` Stephen Hemminger
2024-05-02 21:48 ` Stephen Hemminger
2024-05-03 9:46 ` Daniel Gregory
2024-05-04 0:56 ` Stephen Hemminger
2024-05-09 11:02 ` Daniel Gregory
2024-05-03 13:32 ` David Marchand
2024-05-03 14:21 ` Daniel Gregory
2024-05-03 18:27 ` [PATCH v2] " Daniel Gregory
2024-05-03 18:30 ` Daniel Gregory
2024-05-04 0:59 ` Stephen Hemminger
2024-05-06 9:30 ` Ruifeng Wang
2024-05-11 17:00 ` Wathsala Wathawana Vithanage
2024-05-04 1:02 ` [PATCH] " Stephen Hemminger
2024-05-09 11:11 ` Daniel Gregory [this message]
2024-05-09 16:47 ` Tyler Retzlaff
2024-05-11 16:48 ` Wathsala Wathawana Vithanage
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20240509111150.GA2730096@ste-uk-lab-gw \
--to=daniel.gregory@bytedance.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=liangma@bytedance.com \
--cc=punit.agrawal@bytedance.com \
--cc=ruifeng.wang@arm.com \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).