From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Hunt, David" Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/4] examples/power: remove mask functions Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 12:13:07 +0000 Message-ID: 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: "Burakov, Anatoly" , dev@dpdk.org Return-path: Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CEEA2BE1 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 13:13:09 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <9f0813fc-309f-33bf-1b74-ecb89392634f@intel.com> 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" 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. Thanks, Dave.