From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA058432B0; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 14:54:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6554F402B6; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 14:54:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28DC04025D for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 14:54:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFAE05C0139; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 08:54:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 06 Nov 2023 08:54:08 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm3; t= 1699278848; x=1699365248; bh=jQG6h8Kic39xnML2O5IxabtbzMnLbI7Ijwh O4pMmD2Y=; b=lmA46j9vf5QWJZcSe/V9u/e9JUOUtVQHXqAbQtB5ENjUK+fIfpj Dzlz4vk8AlfXJlVlnp2KH8dXqqBB46kqgpcDB7hJ8e8jnS7whDw8fvuxwrD3nNsv qEgbPmSvBK/eUEtXNpoVRNs0/5549vTHzZZtRsoAEoa/B0AoSH/NbAskiqazKXm6 HZiC9AIJNEQJYR2E5wnuA4IkP9a7QMIVXi6oF/zpaMlWWmIsZvpyBsxU013+oLvp bZdEJNMB2O8lbw3VhY+wugWme/HHTYNaJ7ykNcmO475CAigoiIryizMLvIAM9MVy WGzg+l88bh5EJIJ2/PhLxcSRRiYw5QlzuVw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1699278848; x=1699365248; bh=jQG6h8Kic39xnML2O5IxabtbzMnLbI7Ijwh O4pMmD2Y=; b=S2zlQ9wIAkIZuKAZpsSNlPMCCmRvBeUpN+FiWdFcdyky2EXCyK7 1jpD5DcqUXHfiveYEW+zfE6M+jdde/kYFTKb1Pnm6HcG/S15dRqQSaqnSOrjE2gM CeXQstFe63mDSCze2mAG5ffer91Jrh8fYAAKb/amuhvo4KYWE/pZEA7pwztMvscA e5m0Vww2qdulznG3BKxTX5E/cNgwODbLDJTAPheMo9yAkM+o6/538YQVfkqta0iQ hSKxjD1i5N+oxTG7WkuD4G6WrFS53gbDus+6AbHyPsktfL1m6NvMReoycH3EVVab MewmT2eNhhcrsfT3eMd9khFO/HZf6gvifFQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvkedruddugedgheeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefhvfevufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtqh ertddttdejnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgrshcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghs sehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepgedttdeljeejgeffke ekkedtjeevtdehvedtkeeivdeuuedvieduvdelveejueejnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihii vgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonh drnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i47234305:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 08:54:07 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: David Christensen Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] eal/linux: verify mmu type for DPDK support (ppc64le) Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2023 14:54:04 +0100 Message-ID: <3512484.V25eIC5XRa@thomas> In-Reply-To: <2e4354af-824d-9b1c-b61f-b6501393212e@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20231010225100.335049-1-drc@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <3356591.usfYGdeWWP@thomas> <2e4354af-824d-9b1c-b61f-b6501393212e@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org 23/10/2023 23:59, David Christensen: >=20 > On 10/17/23 5:39=E2=80=AFAM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > I feel this function should not be implemented in the common EAL. > > What about adding a new function in lib/eal/ppc/ ? > > And add the "return true" for other architectures? >=20 > Would it be more appropriate in the lib/eal/common level or=20 > lib/eal/linux only? I would expect the MMU requirement should apply to=20 > FreeBSD on ppc64le as well but IBM doesn't support or test FreeBSD=20 > internally. Even if you are not testing it, I don't think you should restrict the code change to Linux.