On 12/3/2014 11:40 PM, Richardson, Bruce wrote: > On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 04:10:23PM +0800, Michael Qiu wrote: >> lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c:324:4: error: comparison >> is always false due to limited range of data type [-Werror=type-limits] >> || (hugepage_sz == RTE_PGSIZE_16G)) { >> ^ >> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors >> >> lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal.c(461): error #2259: non-pointer >> conversion from "long long" to "void *" may lose significant bits >> RTE_PTR_ALIGN_CEIL((uintptr_t)addr, RTE_PGSIZE_16M); >> >> This was introuduced by commit b77b5639: >> mem: add huge page sizes for IBM Power >> >> The root cause is that size_t and uintptr_t are 32-bit in i686 >> platform, but RTE_PGSIZE_16M and RTE_PGSIZE_16G are always 64-bit. >> >> Define RTE_PGSIZE_16G only in 64 bit platform to avoid >> this issue. >> >> Signed-off-by: Michael Qiu <michael.qiu at intel.com> > Minor comment below. > > Acked-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson at intel.com> > >> --- >> app/test/test_memzone.c | 18 ++++++++++++------ >> lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_memzone.c | 2 ++ >> lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_memory.h | 14 ++++++++------ >> lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c | 12 +++++------- >> 4 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) >> > ... snip ... >> --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_memory.h >> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_memory.h >> @@ -53,12 +53,14 @@ extern "C" { >> #endif >> >> enum rte_page_sizes { >> - RTE_PGSIZE_4K = 1ULL << 12, >> - RTE_PGSIZE_2M = 1ULL << 21, >> - RTE_PGSIZE_1G = 1ULL << 30, >> - RTE_PGSIZE_64K = 1ULL << 16, >> - RTE_PGSIZE_16M = 1ULL << 24, >> - RTE_PGSIZE_16G = 1ULL << 34 >> + RTE_PGSIZE_4K = 1UL << 12, >> + RTE_PGSIZE_2M = 1UL << 21, >> + RTE_PGSIZE_1G = 1UL << 30, >> + RTE_PGSIZE_64K = 1UL << 16, >> + RTE_PGSIZE_16M = 1UL << 24, >> +#ifdef RTE_ARCH_64 >> + RTE_PGSIZE_16G = 1ULL << 34 > you don't need the "LL" here as long type is 64-bits on 64-bit systems. > Changing > it to 1UL << 34 will keep all entries consistent.
Hi Thomas, Should I resend V3 patch to modify this or you can do it when you plan to merge this patch? Thanks, Michael >