From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <thomas@monjalon.net>
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A9B6A48A;
 Sat, 20 Jan 2018 16:30:42 +0100 (CET)
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41])
 by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9544A206B8;
 Sat, 20 Jan 2018 10:30:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161])
 by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 20 Jan 2018 10:30:41 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h=
 cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to
 :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender
 :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=Qc3mov3UXa0MUHphItgi1uAg8i
 K0ypXg0oAWFLa7CR4=; b=qIxHbpIpy1iqsoL9HclKn92JL9WSx0wm96GcTyW/be
 cA4DDGrMFRdUpMlqjDxf1QvOm1umKpRgfhNhM9vHfu2BESIvtRV84WR+TqvROQJq
 hd9jkfGOkaESzjf2sB/UOCcKA5adzfU29qQx1jNvTaog7dz3SKxUkABXVERq88w9
 Q=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=
 messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type
 :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references
 :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=Qc3mov
 3UXa0MUHphItgi1uAg8iK0ypXg0oAWFLa7CR4=; b=qHh8aGBMe+m7bEfgL3MubO
 CEh67swkVJak9wgHkOSyBUSQiG3RV/+pip9J6OJpGeT265BP7ykzXjjfb8eeXvWT
 2QSYbuyFjU9TlRFZVmCLse1V3XWzctzUxBYZdegfwO7QDJ3kHX883QsrZtrZp+t2
 3zBYtaGyLJu1yH7/zde5Mwk5OcFyBPqWqQeZ7gMoXXaHRGN2PEgyxIdzE4JG8Nn1
 4+Xd3PDuyJGGcTuRnx4BtRsBmMXA5PWpIWBJcNMNvMY0YEadUNFxdIUNwPWFsmdz
 iWueMUIpc7kxxYjfe7CFkhCrnQqpqrVRsXB1cCbP9XRjHXi8yrF7h5wrlXdfMFhA
 ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:oWBjWq7PlqHIPBNtcCExjnB3PzygtMq0docx3f2p3lQg0eG8MyLtWg>
Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184])
 by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 3765A240DE;
 Sat, 20 Jan 2018 10:30:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
Cc: stable@dpdk.org, dev@dpdk.org, jianfeng.tan@intel.com, qi.z.zhang@intel.com,
 stephen@networkplumber.org, santosh.shukla@caviumnetworks.com,
 anatoly.burakov@intel.com, peterx@redhat.com
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2018 16:30:05 +0100
Message-ID: <7562300.6VOHPpqvym@xps>
In-Reply-To: <20180112102220.20061-1-maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
References: <20180112102220.20061-1-maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v3] bus/pci: forbid VA as IOVA
	mode if IOMMU address width too small
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2018 15:30:42 -0000

12/01/2018 11:22, Maxime Coquelin:
> Intel VT-d supports different address widths for the IOVAs, from
> 39 bits to 56 bits.
> 
> While recent processors support at least 48 bits, VT-d emulation
> currently only supports 39 bits. It makes DMA mapping to fail in this
> case when using VA as IOVA mode, as user-space virtual addresses uses
> up to 47 bits (see kernel's Documentation/x86/x86_64/mm.txt).
> 
> This patch parses VT-d CAP register value available in sysfs, and
> forbid VA as IOVA mode if the GAW is 39 bits or unknown.
> 
> Fixes: f37dfab21c98 ("drivers/net: enable IOVA mode for Intel PMDs")
> 
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> Signed-off-by: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
[...]
> +	if (fscanf(fp, "%lx", &vtd_cap_reg) != 1) {

Compilation error on 32-bit. Fix:

-       if (fscanf(fp, "%lx", &vtd_cap_reg) != 1) {
+       if (fscanf(fp, "%" PRIx64, &vtd_cap_reg) != 1) {

[...]
> +#elif defined(RTE_ARCH_PPC_64)
> +static bool
> +pci_one_device_iommu_support_va(struct rte_pci_device *dev)
> +{
> +       return false;
> +}
> +#else
> +static bool
> +pci_one_device_iommu_support_va(struct rte_pci_device *dev)
> +{
> +	return true;
> +}
> +#endif

Compilation error on non-x86. Fix:

 #elif defined(RTE_ARCH_PPC_64)
 static bool
-pci_one_device_iommu_support_va(struct rte_pci_device *dev)
+pci_one_device_iommu_support_va(__rte_unused struct rte_pci_device *dev)
 {
        return false;
 }
 #else
 static bool
-pci_one_device_iommu_support_va(struct rte_pci_device *dev)
+pci_one_device_iommu_support_va(__rte_unused struct rte_pci_device *dev)
 {
        return true;
 }

Applied with above fixes, thanks.