From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pa0-f53.google.com (mail-pa0-f53.google.com [209.85.220.53]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DC2A568A for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 17:13:31 +0100 (CET) Received: by pabur14 with SMTP id ur14so106299957pab.0 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:13:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mvista-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=FEeFBdydtV3Ao2tB1QTwLYOt95En5KpxU1yoagzFp2E=; b=vWMPggzzu/ciWlXxyMdIYDsr62ijhaKa0uzaqyBhVPoiC1wcPyeHdIihwFWcL8bXly TsGngxFLMaHMatQo4WzOukEf/xnFHEWbbkgIZTOyjzhQKG2UVpbY48K6vByzAgPauE01 CeACu+Gfl+cVKvnxo0FXieLnnae4poxKANdy9V3RklX4wmVfFcKmGCTm8TLHWYnldffG IhYyU1YdDqtvN5Kfb0sU3klpS3fohJ7Md3y5uAsU8LMpx75uZR0sHymbO/fKa3HOAsgw FcVvk1E97k+wGm1qyUIzKjDZqYNOk7KV1ER2TRYt5KxKYleJb10Y2YeSPjINWffZlhl6 qr1Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=FEeFBdydtV3Ao2tB1QTwLYOt95En5KpxU1yoagzFp2E=; b=VFnc+oDmNY6Dw4ALFbZMa+9ze158lFscrIzwW29fhZR/lk7DgL/lbnXXC/wzv2461s aN7KTEHB5VGvRW7TuxREchX+68uNs85e51nkXQG1F2Daeqjl9wtuc9JcVdTMFb1bVwU/ GLosB9yNa+kjHch0GTkcxjGtZ3lQKzh8blmpbRy8RXBwtCmpmMmpwnjzxZvf72oN2CuR /JyauCPyz5EHhsPa819TJwHPOVwlIOC5WywnWUq//BKseo/+Fmm95vPI2YIuhfXlNgN3 rQQyAYO9dkKf0wt8QNp3yaYJtNeQJANaNSKPiagTnf+LR6TY9raKCkYZXeUBd3PR9Xax iBnw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm5Ea0lmlWzzx5nWF+0Foi8oXr18RkZmdW4ApQCSHWfjH5vjhN4cMI83lcveVUORvN2Bz39cIkMpUDEBZlk+LiliG7UqjMzbQJcZlW44PbnsusFb8M= MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.66.240.97 with SMTP id vz1mr46826880pac.29.1450109610610; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:13:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.66.13.233 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:13:30 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20151214155603.GA1205@localhost.localdomain> References: <1450098032-21198-1-git-send-email-sshukla@mvista.com> <1450098032-21198-8-git-send-email-sshukla@mvista.com> <20151214143717.GD30309@localhost.localdomain> <20151214155603.GA1205@localhost.localdomain> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 21:43:30 +0530 Message-ID: From: Santosh Shukla To: Jerin Jacob Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [ [PATCH v2] 07/13] linuxapp: eal: arm: Always return 0 for rte_eal_iopl_init() X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:13:31 -0000 On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 9:26 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote: > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 08:54:08PM +0530, Santosh Shukla wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Jerin Jacob >> wrote: >> > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 06:30:26PM +0530, Santosh Shukla wrote: >> >> iopl() syscall not supported in linux-arm/arm64 so always return 0 value. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Santosh Shukla >> >> --- >> >> lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal.c | 3 +++ >> >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >> >> >> >> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal.c b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal.c >> >> index 635ec36..2617037 100644 >> >> --- a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal.c >> >> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal.c >> >> @@ -716,6 +716,9 @@ rte_eal_iopl_init(void) >> >> return -1; >> >> return 0; >> >> #else >> >> +#if defined(RTE_ARCH_ARM) || defined(RTE_ARCH_ARM64) >> >> + return 0; /* iopl syscall not supported for ARM/ARM64 */ >> > >> > I guess for other architectures also iopl not supported.I think better >> > to move this function to eal. Else this function will return 'true' for >> > ppc64 >> > >> >> didn't understood. This func is in eal right? and for ppc64, function > > meant to abstract through lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/ > to avoid #ifdef clutter > make sense to me :) >> will return -1 (false). Although i could include ppc64 / tile or >> invert the logic such a way that non-x86 arch to return default true >> value. >> >> However iopl() used for virtio and only two arch using x86/ now arm. I >> am not sure ppc64/tile or other arch has any plan to use virtio pmd >> thus care for iopl(). > > Why not? With your patch, dpdk-virtio has very minimal dependency on > architecture (implementing raw_*) or even we can have generic routine for that > Right! We'll do in v3, Thanks!! >> >> > or have at least postive logic, >> > #if defined(RTE_ARCH_X86_64) || defined(RTE_ARCH_I686) || >> > defined(RTE_ARCH_X86_X32) >> > >> > >> >> +#endif >> >> return -1; >> >> #endif >> >> } >> >> -- >> >> 1.7.9.5 >> >>