From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] examples/l3fwd: em path performance fix Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 11:04:49 +0100 Message-ID: <1902439.xcempkFplY@xps13> References: <1458293807-2604-1-git-send-email-tomaszx.kulasek@intel.com> <1458294767-5996-1-git-send-email-tomaszx.kulasek@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Jan Viktorin , jianbo.liu@linaro.org, jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com To: Tomasz Kulasek Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f53.google.com (mail-wm0-f53.google.com [74.125.82.53]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E506558A for ; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 11:06:21 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f53.google.com with SMTP id l124so24570722wmf.1 for ; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 03:06:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1458294767-5996-1-git-send-email-tomaszx.kulasek@intel.com> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 2016-03-18 10:52, Tomasz Kulasek: > +#if !defined(NO_HASH_MULTI_LOOKUP) && defined(__ARM_NEON) I think we should use CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_ARM_NEON here. Any ARM maintainer to confirm? Note that there is already another occurence of this compiler flag: examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_em.c:#elif defined(__ARM_NEON)