From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Burakov, Anatoly" Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/4] examples/power: remove mask functions Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 12:14:15 +0000 Message-ID: <0b797033-b819-f7b4-6df5-1810eadcfb88@intel.com> References: <20181122170220.55482-1-david.hunt@intel.com> <20181122170220.55482-3-david.hunt@intel.com> <9f0813fc-309f-33bf-1b74-ecb89392634f@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: lei.a.yao@intel.com To: "Hunt, David" , dev@dpdk.org Return-path: Received: from mga12.intel.com (mga12.intel.com [192.55.52.136]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 363B52BE1 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 13:14:18 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 13-Dec-18 12:13 PM, Hunt, David wrote: > Hi Anatoly, > > On 10/12/2018 12:30 PM, Burakov, Anatoly wrote: >> On 22-Nov-18 5:02 PM, David Hunt wrote: >>> since we're moving to allowing greater than 64 cores, the mask functions >>> that use uint64_t to perform functions on a masked set of cores are no >>> longer feasable, so removing them. >> >> Perhaps "needed" is a better word, rather than "feasible" :) > > > Yes, "needed" is probably better. :) > > >> >> Please correct me if i'm wrong, but as of this patch, some of the >> functionality is left in half-working state, and this patch should >> really be merged with patch 3? >> > > This patch removes all the mask functions, including the CLI option to > call them, so is in a fully working state. I think it should be fine as > a standalone patch in the series. Yep, OK. (provided you fix the commit message...) Reviewed-by: Anatoly Burakov > > > Thanks, > Dave. > > -- Thanks, Anatoly