[lng-odp] new mailing list address

As part of ODP project moving from Linaro to Open Fast Path Foundation the mailing list address has changed. The new mailing list address is o...@lists.opendataplane.org. Mailing list subscriptions are not automatically transferred to the new list. Please resubscribe to the new list at

[lng-odp] did not attend today's ODP call

Gentleman, I'm sorry for missing call today. Daughter had spike if high temperature just on that time and I had to lower it. If there are some questions or something needs to be done for ODP, please send me an email. Maxim.

Re: [lng-odp] can't configure ODP with DPDK pktio using DPDK package in Ubutnu

apt-get install dpdk-dev cd odp.git ./configure It has to take everything from repo. At least ubuntu 18.04 has dpdk for x86. For cross compilation please take a look at .travis.yml file. It uses docker to compile odp. But cross compilation for now is only for 16.04 becase it was well ported on

Re: [lng-odp] [EXT] Re: Get Physical address

It looks like to get address is not so complex, just read /proc/$pid/pagemap https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5748492/is-there-any-api-for-determining-the-physical-address-from-virtual-address-in-li But for linux-generic it's not clear why do we need this. Maybe AF_XDP require physical

Re: [lng-odp] ODP crash at buffer_alloc_multi() while inserting into iplookuptable

ll help, we can create an issue in github too. > Thanks for the help. > > Regards, > P Gyanesh Kumar Patra > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 12:17 PM Maxim Uvarov > wrote: > >> odp prints happen on places where ODP_DBG("print something") is placed. >> It's just

[lng-odp] fixed netmap pktio test run under Travis

Fixed netmap pktio test run under Travis. Example test run: https://travis-ci.org/Linaro/odp/jobs/442711508 PASS: validation/api/pktio/pktio_run_netmap.sh Fix: https://github.com/Linaro/odp-docker-images/commit/86d32b463e6471662f21ff015cebc28f5e16c3c3 Problem was with missing lsmod/insmod

Re: [lng-odp] odp with dpdk pktio gives error with larger packets - 'Segmented buffers not supported'

nks for your help. > > Regards, > P Gyanesh Kumar Patra > > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 3:36 PM Maxim Uvarov > wrote: > >> DPDK as ODP can have packets which are not in physacally continius >> memory. I.e. packet can be split on several memory segments. That is not

Re: [lng-odp] odp with dpdk pktio gives error with larger packets - 'Segmented buffers not supported'

DPDK as ODP can have packets which are not in physacally continius memory. I.e. packet can be split on several memory segments. That is not supported by current code and you have this warning. I think that we have dpdk pkio validation test and it works with large packets. But to do that you need

[lng-odp] will be miss today arch call

Hello team, I will miss today's arch call due to family needs. I think I will be able to do review and merge patches later today. Best regards, Maxim.

[lng-odp] github renaming script is not operation right now

As you can see github assistant scripts stopped to work now. We re run AWS server with that scripts but unfortunately github changed authorization api to 2-way authorization and it will take some time to create tokens and link them to login. I'm sure that I can fix it just after way back from

Re: [lng-odp] ODP crash at buffer_alloc_multi() while inserting into iplookuptable

t; is correct and preferred from gcc standards * typedef struct {} test_t ODP_ALIGN() discards align Had segfauls on gcc-7 using that Signed-off-by: Ilias Apalodimas Reviewed-by: Bill Fischofer Signed-off-by: Maxim Uvarov Maxim. On 10 September 2018 at 20:01, gyanesh patra

Re: [lng-odp] ODP crash at buffer_alloc_multi() while inserting into iplookuptable

do you have some test code to reproduce it? On 10 September 2018 at 18:06, gyanesh patra wrote: > Hi, > ODP is crashing at buffer_alloc_multi() while inserting into iplookuptable. > > The backtrace is as below: (gdb) bt #0 buffer_alloc_multi > (pool=0x7fffd5420c00,

Re: [lng-odp] pktio_run_pcap.sh question

does it hangs or it takes too long time to complete? On 5 September 2018 at 10:46, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov < dmitry.ereminsoleni...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 05/09/18 09:24, Maxim Uvarov wrote: > > it hangs on some ubuntu where iptables default policy is drop. Can it be > > t

Re: [lng-odp] pktio_run_pcap.sh question

it hangs on some ubuntu where iptables default policy is drop. Can it be that case? (we had fix in .travis.yaml for that.) On 5 September 2018 at 00:49, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov < dmitry.ereminsoleni...@linaro.org> wrote: > Hello colleagues, > > I'm observing pktio pcap test taking too long to

[lng-odp] odp docker ci howto

Hello Matias, I've update here Travis paragraph for Docker usage: https://github.com/Linaro/odp/wiki Best regards, Maxim.

Re: [lng-odp] Reconsidering PowerPC architecture for ODP

DPAA is arm64, at least main core. Isn't it? I see that DPDK is supported on IBM Power8. So ODP-DPDK on Power is one use case. I'm not sure if there can be done any native ODP port or they just use PCI. So the question is how it will affect on ODP  Debian packaging? If Debian will build ODP

[lng-odp] destroy tm system

I'm looking on errors of our example for traffic manager. There is missing destroy path for created tm queues. Now when I look to it I'm thinking that it will be good to simplify ODP api for cleaning up TM settings. On configuring TM we need to create TM nodes and TM queues, then link nodes and

[lng-odp] patches to mailing list

I restored sripts to email patches from github to mailing list. There was problem with python utf-8 strings conversion which came with some update. In general I can run script to email all even already closed PRs. That might be useful for searching for patches from web. Mailing list test is

Re: [lng-odp] latency calulation with netmap pkt i/o fails with oversized packet debug msg

cket accepted drop error printed. Thanks for reporting this. Maxim. > Regards, > Gyanesh > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 11:25 AM Maxim Uvarov > wrote: > >> >> >> On 26 July 2018 at 16:01, gyanesh patra wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> Here is the outpu

Re: [lng-odp] latency calulation with netmap pkt i/o fails with oversized packet debug msg

_table, slot_tbl, num_rx, ts); it looks like message just confusing. Packet is less then mtu. > If anything else is required, i can get those details too. > > Thanks, > P Gyanesh Kumar Patra > > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 3:36 AM Elo, Matias (Nokia - FI/Espoo) < > ma

Re: [lng-odp] latency calulation with netmap pkt i/o fails with oversized packet debug msg

For quick look it looks like mtu is not set correctly on open(). Can you try this patch: diff --git a/platform/linux-generic/pktio/netmap.c b/platform/linux-generic/pktio/netmap.c index 0da2b7a..d4db0af 100644 --- a/platform/linux-generic/pktio/netmap.c +++

Re: [lng-odp] ODP logo to use in academic publications

main odp project has: ./doc/images/ODP-Logo-HQ.svg I think it should be possible to convert it to eps. Maxim. On 25 July 2018 at 15:38, gyanesh patra wrote: > ​ > Hi, > I am looking for the ODP Logo in eps format to use in academic > publications. I have only encountered png files. Is there

[lng-odp] travis CI issues

It looks like Travis has issues with images which marked as deprecated in travis.yaml file. Unfortunately quick jump to new image will break cross platforms builds. I almost rewrote CI jobs into containers. Hope with update PR at the end of current week. I.e. I have CI worked again but need to

[lng-odp] odp v1.19.0.2 has been tagged!

Hello, New ODP release has be tagged in the repo (https://github.com/Linaro/odp). I think it might be reasonable to duplicate changelog in mailing list. Because of we switched ot github and people who do not signed to github email notifications might not see that news. Please find changelog

Re: [lng-odp] unrecognized command line option '-fstack-protector-strong'

LTS. Maxim. On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 10:41 AM Maxim Uvarov <mailto:maxim.uva...@linaro.org>> wrote: Ubuntu 14.04.5 which I run in container uses gcc 4.8 but on host I use more fresh Ubuntu kernel compiled with stack protector. That makes dpdk modules not compatible. 

[lng-odp] unrecognized command line option '-fstack-protector-strong'

Ubuntu 14.04.5 which I run in container uses gcc 4.8 but on host I use more fresh Ubuntu kernel compiled with stack protector. That makes dpdk modules not compatible. But it's not clear why dpdk modules inherit kernels compiler options. Is there any workaround for that? LD

[lng-odp] move odp travis tests under docker

Hello, I'm going to issue PR to completely move all travis tests under docker environment. It will be the same environment ubuntu + cross tools installed with apt-get but everything is already set up there. I did experiments and see that execution time is about the same. Commit to run

Re: [lng-odp] push_head vs pull_head

If your intent is to do >> things with IPsec I recommend upgrading to that. The current LTS support >> level is v1.19.0.1. I'm not sure if that will work with MACSAD, but you >> might want to check. >> >> Are you able to see if this level of the code works for you? >

Re: [lng-odp] push_head vs pull_head

how match do you pull head? Does this value fit into default headroom? Maxim. On 18 June 2018 at 18:34, Daniel Feferman wrote: > Hi Bill, > > Thank you for your answer. Answering your questions: > > -v16. odp-linux. > -It was a Xeon E5, then x86 using a link of up to 10G. > -I'm new on ODP,

[lng-odp] armv8 gcc lock free instructions

Hello Maxim, we have discussion here that gcc for armv8 does not generated lock free instructions for 64 bit types. But all other arched do. https://github.com/Linaro/odp/pull/611 Do you know reasons for that? Thank you, Maxim.

Re: [lng-odp] odp tools manpages

shouldn't it be man page for odp library which we somehow can generate from doxygen? Where do you package odp examples? I think they have to be somewhere under /usr/share/bin/odp-examples and just referenced as example apps. (Like QT examples do). Rather then be "tools". Maxim. On 5 June 2018

Re: [lng-odp] Debian package for ODP

Thanks. What are the next steps in upstreaming it to debian? How we can help with it? On 28 April 2018 at 20:04, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov < dmitry.ereminsoleni...@linaro.org> wrote: > Hi, > > On 28 April 2018 at 13:59, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov > wrote: > >

Re: [lng-odp] Debian package for ODP

On 28 April 2018 at 14:38, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov < dmitry.ereminsoleni...@linaro.org> wrote: > Hello, > > On 28 April 2018 at 14:28, Maxim Uvarov <maxim.uva...@linaro.org> wrote: > > Nice, > > > > might be better to have common examples with abi-com

Re: [lng-odp] TigerMoth_LTS brach

On 28 April 2018 at 14:25, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov < dmitry.ereminsoleni...@linaro.org> wrote: > Hello, Maxim, > > Could you please start pushing pending fixes to tigermoth_lts branch, so > that > they can be picked into packaging? > > As we discussed before I plan to release new development tag

Re: [lng-odp] Debian package for ODP

Nice, might be better to have common examples with abi-compat mode, so they will not depend on platfrom. Maxim. On 28 April 2018 at 13:59, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov < dmitry.ereminsoleni...@linaro.org> wrote: > Hello, > > Current package review is handled in Debian bug 896970: > >

[lng-odp] pull request versions script is broken

Hello, our host which we use for updating pull request numbers looks like down. I'm not sure if it will be fixed tomorrow. If not I will do some workaround for that. Probably move this task inside Travis runs. Maxim.

Re: [lng-odp] wrong push to master branch was reverted

;josep.puigdem...@linaro.org> > AuthorDate: Tue Apr 3 09:44:51 2018 +0200 > Commit: Maxim Uvarov <maxim.uva...@linaro.org> > CommitDate: Wed Apr 4 15:58:26 2018 +0300 > > fdserver: handle interruption by signal in accept > > This patch fixes: https://b

[lng-odp] wrong push to master branch was reverted

Colleagues, I'm apologize of wrong push to master branch. On had new environment and wrongly pushed odp-dpdk changes to master branch. (pushed to wrong git remote). Then I quickly corrected that with force push. I hope current history is good as it was before. But if you used automatic pulls from

Re: [lng-odp] release

--disable-test-perf-proc CFLAGS="-O0 -g" ./helper/test/cuckootable hungs! export ODP_SCHEDULER=basic ./helper/test/cuckootable works again! On 13 March 2018 at 10:34, Maxim Uvarov <maxim.uva...@linaro.org> wrote: > CC odp ML for this issue. > > Maxim. > > On 13 Marc

Re: [lng-odp] release

28)neu).i64[0]), >"r" (((union i128)neu).i64[1]), >"r" (var) > : "memory"); > else if (mm == __ATOMIC_RELAXED) > __asm__ volatile("stxp %w0, %1, %2, [%3]" > : "=" (ret) > : "r" (((union i128)neu).i64[0]), >"

[lng-odp] api-next branch force updated

Hello, api-next branch is forced update to current master. Please audjust that in your PR. Backup is here: https://github.com/muvarov/odp/tree/api-next_1.18_backup Thank you, Maxim.

Re: [lng-odp] Shippable: no test reports

has now to be fixed. On 28 February 2018 at 18:04, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov < dmitry.ereminsoleni...@linaro.org> wrote: > Hello, > > Just for your info: currently Shippable fails to generate test reports > due to one of the system files being compiled for the wrong > architecture. I've opened an

Re: [lng-odp] ODP release tarballs

github automacitally creates tar balls for tags: https://github.com/Linaro/odp/releases is that what is needed? On 28 February 2018 at 08:18, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov < dmitry.ereminsoleni...@linaro.org> wrote: > Hello, > > I have been looking for tarballs from previous ODP releases. Do we put >

Re: [lng-odp] Clang + AArch64 + non-ABI workaround

On 02/16/18 21:47, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov wrote: > On 16 February 2018 at 18:26, Maxim Uvarov <maxim.uva...@linaro.org> wrote: >> can you link to problem description? is it segfault here? > > https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3611 > but it has to fail. as I sa

Re: [lng-odp] Clang + AArch64 + non-ABI workaround

can you link to problem description? is it segfault here? On 16 February 2018 at 17:54, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov < dmitry.ereminsoleni...@linaro.org> wrote: > Hello, > > I've been debugging the Clang/AArch64/non-ABI case during this week. > > It indeed is a compiler issue. Here is a workaround,

Re: [lng-odp] odp_packet_data() considered harmful

pool can have segments layout in it's capabilities and if needed on thread creating we can check that odp_packet_data() will not be uses cross segments. Maxim. On 15 February 2018 at 17:42, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) < petri.savolai...@nokia.com> wrote: > > > > -Original

Re: [lng-odp] Compilation flags for release build and performance evaluation

./configure --help for linux-generic and linux-dpdk platforms. Maxim. On 31 January 2018 at 22:41, gyanesh patra wrote: > Hi, > I am curious if there are any specific flags available for ODP for release > builds or performance evaluation? > > Also where can i find

Re: [lng-odp] problem about packet_alloc() function.

CC lng-odp-dpdk mailing list. On 26 January 2018 at 04:27, lin huang wrote: > Hi all, > I checked the code of odp-dpdk. And I got a problem which confused me > a lot. > In the function packet_alloc(), odp tried to alloc a buffer which > originated from the mbuf at the

[lng-odp] odp git procedure

Hello, after some talks we came to agreement that one of the major thing for odp is it's validation over CI. So for now we decided to keep current scheme of work. I.e. patches which do not touch api go to master and api patches go to api-next branch. To make git maintenance more easy we will

Re: [lng-odp] problem about odp-ovs(with dpdk)

On 01/16/18 10:35, lin huang wrote: > Hi guys, >I get a problem when I try to use odp-ovs with odp-dpdk. > I compiled the odp-dpdk and odp-ovs successfully. and then I want to try add > a port to ovs bridge with the following command: > > ovs-vsctl add-port br0 odp:enp0s8 -- set Interface

[lng-odp] api-next history was rewritten

git push -f to api-next branch. Because of code is similar to master there is no need to have branch with not plain history (merge from master to api-next and back). As a side affect old PRs for api-next branch look ugly in github web interface because they have now different merge points. To

Re: [lng-odp] Travis runs not being linked from PRs?

On 01/12/18 20:27, Bill Fischofer wrote: > Looks like something changed in the GitHub scripts. The link to the Travis > run from the PR is no longer present. This is not good. > For last 2 prs 338 and 339 everything is ok. Bor 339 I needed to scroll down frame window with results. Maxim.

[lng-odp] Tiger Moth rc1 has been tagged

Hello team, I put 2 tags to repo it's v1.17.0.0 and v1.17.0.0_tigermoth_rc1. ODP API changes are really big can be found in CHANGELOG for corresponding tag or in this email bellow: https://github.com/Linaro/odp/blob/master/CHANGELOG All api changes from api-next branch went to master branch.

[lng-odp] API add queue hdl to odp_pktin_wait_time()

>From PR discission https://github.com/Linaro/odp/pull/341: There is some reason to clean up odp_pktin_wait_time() api. 1. There is suggestion to add queue to odp_pktin_wait_time() function. I.e.: uint64_t odp_pktin_wait_time(uint64_t nsec, odp_pktin_queue_t queue); Idea is that queue handler

Re: [lng-odp] ODP development process proposal

Both 1 and 2 are workable models which are more easy to maintain. Unfortunately we did not agree to use it at the beginning. I would be happy if we can reconsider our work-flow. One direction will make it more easy to work. Maxim. On 12/27/17 21:16, Bala Manoharan wrote: > My two cents > > I

Re: [lng-odp] IPsec and crypto performance and OpenSSL

odp_init_global() allocates shm, then odp_init_local() / odp_term_local() allocates/destroys per thread contexts in array in that shm. I think that has to work. Maxim. On 11 December 2017 at 17:02, Francois Ozog wrote: > I favor finishing ODP (ex 2.0) integration

Re: [lng-odp] New API to convert user area ptr to odp_packet_t

I did not understand one moment there. What I understand is: 1. you created pool with some size of meta data. 2. you get or alloc packet and send it to VPP. 3. VPP returns back pointer to user data. Why you can not place packet handle inside user area then? Is it cache line problem? If VPP

Re: [lng-odp] odp dpdk

re? > > I guess .. enable csum option... ? > > one question when people download odp, run and see line rate and happy and other is what we will use in tests. We can check that line rate is till line rate and scheduler on both ends is some value bellow line rate. > On 7 December 2017 at

Re: [lng-odp] odp dpdk

calculation/validation > 14.8 mpps (TX) / 6.8 mpps (RX) - master with PR327 (remove 1m sleep + > replace atomic counters + remove csum calculation/validation) > > /Bogdan > > > On 6 December 2017 at 13:49, Maxim Uvarov <maxim.uva...@linaro.org> wrote: > > small u

Re: [lng-odp] odp dpdk

checksum inside generator. It looks like problem inside DPDK driver itself. For this PR I think we need to merge it together with changes to odp_generator (the same as for l2fwd) to enable hw check sum, which has to be disabled by default. Maxim. On 6 December 2017 at 10:46, Maxim Uvarov

[lng-odp] api to disable/enale flow control

Until we did not do release I have a question if we need api to enable/disable flow control on pktio. dpdk has it disabled by default. It can be configured with api: + /* disable flow control */ + struct rte_eth_fc_conf fc_conf; + + rte_eth_dev_flow_ctrl_get(pkt_dpdk->port_id,

Re: [lng-odp] odp dpdk

skip this message. I will recheck. Pushed to lava wrong branch. On 6 December 2017 at 10:42, Maxim Uvarov <maxim.uva...@linaro.org> wrote: > Ilias was right yesterday. If number of descriptors increased to 1024 then > TX became again 10M. > > + ret = rte_eth_tx_q

Re: [lng-odp] odp dpdk

W csum is faster on bigger packets. Do you have this kind of data? > > > > Anyway, for this particular case (odp_generator), since UDP > > header/payload is not changing during the test (for now), csum is > > calculated only once at the beginning of the test: so we are com

Re: [lng-odp] odp dpdk

gt; On TX (https://lng.validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/23252.0) I see: >>> >>> ODP_REPO='https://github.com/muvarov/odp' >>> ODP_BRANCH='api-next' >>> >>> >>> On RX (https://lng.validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/23252.1) I see: &g

Re: [lng-odp] odp dpdk

er/job/23252.1) I see: > > ODP_REPO='https://github.com/muvarov/odp' > ODP_BRANCH='devel/api-next_shsum' > > > or are you referring to other test? > > > On 4 December 2017 at 15:53, Maxim Uvarov <maxim.uva...@linaro.org> wrote: >> >> >> On 4 Dec

Re: [lng-odp] odp dpdk

o I re-applied them and testing now: https://lng.validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/23255.1 If not I will comment out bad check summ drop in generator and do next debug... Maxim. > > On 4 December 2017 at 15:53, Maxim Uvarov <maxim.uva...@linaro.org> wrote: >> >> >> On 4 Dec

Re: [lng-odp] odp dpdk

> From: lng-odp [mailto:lng-odp-boun...@lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of > > Bogdan Pricope > > Sent: Monday, December 04, 2017 12:21 PM > > To: Maxim Uvarov <maxim.uva...@linaro.org> > > Cc: lng-odp-forward <lng-odp@lists.linaro.org> > > Subject: Re: [lng

[lng-odp] odp dpdk

Looking to dpdk pktio support and generator. It looks like receive part is broken. If for receive I use sockets it works well but receive with dpdk does not get any packets. For both master and api-next. Can somebody confirm please that it's so. Lava is not supper friendly to debug issue. 1.

Re: [lng-odp] Preparing for ODP 2.0

If patch is suitable for master or api-next (like cache line optimizations) it has to go to master/api-next first. As well as all bug fixes for master branch should go directly to master. Only than patch can be taken to development branch. Maxim. On 28 November 2017 at 12:43, Dmitry

Re: [lng-odp] Github shows commits in wrong order

ey will fix it and when. Maxim. > On 20.11.2017 10:15, Maxim Uvarov wrote: >> created ticked for this on github. >> >> On 20 November 2017 at 12:02, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) < >> petri.savolai...@nokia.com> wrote: >> >>>> -Original M

[lng-odp] api-next is ahead on 208 patches

I attached list of patches which are in api-next but are missing in master branch. To total is 208 patches including merges. Maxim. git diff --stat master api-next ./include/ include/Makefile.am |3 + include/odp/api/spec/chksum.h| 53 ++

[lng-odp] AF_PACKET V4

Looks like there is good progress on AF_PACKET V4 https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/832448/ log says it can accept 33 Mpps on 2 cores. Maxim.

[lng-odp] abi version support

I see that dpdk started to support abi versions in following ways: DPDK_2.0 { global: rte_jobstats_context_finish; rte_jobstats_context_init; . rte_jobstats_set_update_period_function; rte_jobstats_start; local: *; }; DPDK_16.04 {

Re: [lng-odp] issues with usage of mellanox 100G NICs with ODP & ODP-DPDK

ing "ODP" repo (not odp-dpdk), do i need to follow any steps to >> be able to use MLX ??? >> >> >> P Gyanesh Kumar Patra >> >> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Maxim Uvarov <maxim.uva...@linaro.org> >> wrote: >> >>> On 11/08/17

Re: [lng-odp] issues with usage of mellanox 100G NICs with ODP & ODP-DPDK

print --enable-debug it will make ODP_DBG() macro work and it will be visible why it does not opens pktio. Maxim > > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Maxim Uvarov <maxim.uva...@linaro.org > <mailto:maxim.uva...@linaro.org>> wrote: > > is Mellanox pmd compiled in? > > Maxim.

Re: [lng-odp] issues with usage of mellanox 100G NICs with ODP & ODP-DPDK

is Mellanox pmd compiled in? Maxim. On 11/08/17 17:58, gyanesh patra wrote: > Hi, > I am trying to run ODP & ODP-DPDK examples on our server with mellanox 100G > NICs. I am using the odp_l2fwd example. While running the example, I am > facing some issues. > -> When I run "ODP" example using the

[lng-odp] OOO on Monday and Tuesday

Monday is official holiday in Russia. On Tuesday I will be on HighLoad conference. Will take laptop and will respond on emails. Depends on schedule may appear on ODP public call. Best regards, Maxim.

Re: [lng-odp] ODPH_IPPROTO_ICMPv4

On 11/01/17 21:10, Liron Himi wrote: > Hi, > > When I try to use either 'ODPH_IPPROTO_ICMPv4' in my code then checkpatch is > failing on > 'CHECK: Avoid CamelCase: '. > > Are those kind of 'check' errors can be ignored? > Maybe it will be better if you change 'ODPH_IPPROTO_ICMPv4' to >

Re: [lng-odp] drv api in api-next

as discussed today we will drop drv from master and api-next branch. 2.0 branch will need to revert this deletion commit. So that drv will be in 2.0 before it's will be ready to merge to master. Maxim.

[lng-odp] drv api in api-next

In api-next we have some drv apis which is a copy of linux-generic but with drv prefix. I'm thinking what to do with them for Tiger Moth. Or merge them or merge and revert. For now we do not use that api. Maxim.

Re: [lng-odp] Relation between Enumerator class and Enumerator

October 2017 at 04:47, Francois Ozog <francois.o...@linaro.org> wrote: >> In the case of netmdev the device is still there. Please check with Ilias >> for detailed behavior of this technology >> >> FF >> >> Le ven. 27 oct. 2017 à 10:29, Jianbo Liu <jianbo

Re: [lng-odp] Relation between Enumerator class and Enumerator

yes, discovery is done by other tools like lspci, /proc and /sys interfaces. Also udev rules are there to make naming persistent. For pci it can be: odp_pktio_open("mdev:eth0") then you parse /proc/bus/pci/devices to find actual driver used for this eth0. And if you have matching mdev pktio

Re: [lng-odp] DDF discussions taking time

Hello Honnappa, I think we also need to take a look from bottom. I.e. from exact drivers to implement. That it will be more clear which interface is needed to be created. Do you have some list of drivers which needed to be implemented? I.e. with pci drivers I think we in a good way, but non pci

Re: [lng-odp] API-next branch

o corrections, but it still makes the delta > that much smaller. > I pushed master to next. So we can stage ready patches there. If somebody wants to help, please send pool requests. Maxim. > -Petri > > > From: Maxim Uvarov [mailto:maxim.uva...@linaro.org] > Sent: T

Re: [lng-odp] Ingress Metering/Policing

Hello Liron, does you hardware support TCM offload? I see that both Juniper and Cisco have this settings on ports. But it's not clear if they do it in software or hardware. I.e. if there any reason for odp api for that or it can be just example app. p.s. I found here good explanation if

Re: [lng-odp] API-next branch

1. we have api-next branch to collect all api changes with implementation in tests in one places. A lot of people said that it's useful. 2. Yes it's hard to find patches which are in api-next and not in master. 3. New API acceptance period is not very clean. If we can improve that than

Re: [lng-odp] odp api to query free/tottal ram

ot;. Especially in an NFV environment that's not very neighborly >> behavior. >> >> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 2:44 AM, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov < >> dmitry.ereminsoleni...@linaro.org> wrote: >> >>> On 23/10/17 10:39, Maxim Uvarov wrote: >>>&

[lng-odp] odp api to query free/tottal ram

It might be reasonable to add also api call to get return free memory. So that application can adjust pools /buffers size according to hardware or VM settings. Which might be good fit for NFV set up. Any opinions on that? Maxim.

Re: [lng-odp] api-next merge with ODP 2.0

=, stack_end=0x7fffd5103538) at libc-start.c:287 #17 0x0040483d in _start () (gdb) On 16 October 2017 at 22:34, Maxim Uvarov <maxim.uva...@linaro.org> wrote: > ./configure --enable-schedule-scalable > sudo make check > > Test: pktio_test_sched_multi /include/od

Re: [lng-odp] api-next merge with ODP 2.0

> Dmitry had taken a look at these. He mentioned they can be ignored for now. > Thanks, > Honnappa > > On 16 October 2017 at 03:52, Maxim Uvarov <maxim.uva...@linaro.org> wrote: > >> bootstrap generates a lot of errors, I can reproduce them locally also >>

Re: [lng-odp] api-next merge with ODP 2.0

bootstrap generates a lot of errors, I can reproduce them locally also https://travis-ci.org/nagarahalli/odp/jobs/287783022 On 16 October 2017 at 09:21, Maxim Uvarov <maxim.uva...@linaro.org> wrote: > I will take a look. But please check that you added this 3 commits. > > &g

Re: [lng-odp] api-next merge with ODP 2.0

I will take a look. But please check that you added this 3 commits. c16af648 travis: purge dpdk cache on version change 3cb45201 travis: build dpdk for general cpu 73bc4619 travis: temporary turn off dpdk caching In general Travis stopped due to no output. You can make tests more verbose with

Re: [lng-odp] generic core + HW specific drivers

On 6 October 2017 at 22:26, Bill Fischofer wrote: > PR #225 [1] is a good example of the sort of packaging/distro problem ODP > wants to solve. DPDK currently requires special compile flags to determine > the microarchitecture it's running on. As a result, Travis broke

Re: [lng-odp] generic core + HW specific drivers

http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/dpdk.git/tree/dpdk.spec On 6 October 2017 at 20:17, Maxim Uvarov <maxim.uva...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > On 6 October 2017 at 20:05, Honnappa Nagarahalli < > honnappa.nagaraha...@linaro.org> wrote: > >> Any experts on h

Re: [lng-odp] generic core + HW specific drivers

On 6 October 2017 at 20:05, Honnappa Nagarahalli < honnappa.nagaraha...@linaro.org> wrote: > Any experts on how is the packaging done for DPDK? > > ./pkg/dpdk.spec ? > On 6 October 2017 at 08:36, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) > wrote: > >> > No, I'm pointing

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH v2 1/1] api & linux-generic: fixing typos

any patch which touch api spec has to be named: api: and be considered for api-next branch first. please split this patch on 2 patches (api: and linux-gen:) Maxim. On 10/05/17 15:00, Github ODP bot wrote: > From: Mykyta Iziumtsev > > Signed-off-by: Mykyta

Re: [lng-odp] DPDK pktio tests failure

2 issues with dpdk pktio found yesterday: 1) Krishnas update of dpdk version did something wrong with Travis cache. So I had to clear it. 2) Zero copy dpdk has some issues now. We need to understand what is it. Maxim. On 10/05/17 08:56, Bogdan Pricope wrote: > ... or dpdk tests are really

Re: [lng-odp] generic core + HW specific drivers

On 3 October 2017 at 15:59, Bill Fischofer wrote: > Good summary. The key is that RedHat and others want: > > 1. They build the distribution from source we provide, we don't get to > provide any binaries > 2. There is a single distribution they will support per-ISA

Re: [lng-odp] Code review and discussion on mailing list only

On 3 October 2017 at 14:20, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) < petri.savolai...@nokia.com> wrote: > > > From: Maxim Uvarov [mailto:maxim.uva...@linaro.org] > Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 12:50 PM > To: Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) <petri.savolai...@nokia.co

Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH v1 1/1] linux-gen: User /proc/cpuinfo, if sysfs is not available. Fixes https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3249

if you will send v2 please refer to original commit from which you restored that function (or which reverted it.) On 3 October 2017 at 12:37, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) < petri.savolai...@nokia.com> wrote: > > > > -Original Message- > > From: lng-odp

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >