From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf0-f180.google.com (mail-pf0-f180.google.com [209.85.192.180]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A62A8E95 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 11:07:26 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-pf0-f180.google.com with SMTP id e65so21273248pfe.0 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 02:07:26 -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=1BAnmEvmffvpiztXVVfjyZrHNquUnBS0z+Dl0CTiiIY=; b=bwT5onhCoEsvhnN3UNVuXGWJfrdQd0iljbEPfhoW5gPkh4/na75tgj0yTYae3V6kUE /+XKVw19kquPPRkFAFY8AQ3k2GP6eHxv9+8yX+50nMRt1TuH7Ls+wpdbS3MHk32wOzv+ NP+rVEqZEGrvqf3XunRbeXRWLWWc6+xLQjDieWjiW2I8HK77Pp6/lgu0dyBdJmqVEDwf ccd8JtGTbW402UJDGentpBtP/zGQx/LIZsc1a8RkNQm3zTtkoE8sHjfYLEoqjIMuf9a0 OemIRmdoOvm7JkhudbSxGOHJABiJQnXvUxOfChVlqoVl6CmkMrirwTnakn6v8aFk2M+R wtRw== 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=1BAnmEvmffvpiztXVVfjyZrHNquUnBS0z+Dl0CTiiIY=; b=QphM/kxGzPVU7ctRxQomwbY2TaeWSvZwE8zaKfTyKNjDHSA6GZHeKzfCMLmqMoAXgi m7OgANNOBMyetlrsI0BVF00+nuDs5sA5//qyK8cmsMQLxtlx1a3spwp3efqx1wj7CnIO vl+ptq+/1o6EOIYOgScoKKGpKVWdsmumUicfuWM3Vh/mk+phSMthsN+1g/JECr0deAfH 1KtPWM6YZf5FjhOwb4kauHoDf/SLGAIEm3dfLNezvTeinkqnJ966YDPmaAvtPKNIbag+ mSWjEmlKyH5nuOZieM3o7P97nTODK6+x8dqklcOgssE2bjlVmgbKyUZ0Zt0kUXA0Ndx/ Yi9A== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YORhRvTlZwSfrgJ+A4ML2ZEjNHdWOl1OLeWd+qli0gpi8UanLnCkwGMLiMfWrjodpJWwHs/tX8P8wRQOjxA2 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.98.0.66 with SMTP id 63mr54406180pfa.61.1453370845414; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 02:07:25 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.66.196.81 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 02:07:25 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <1453203972-24855-1-git-send-email-sshukla@mvista.com> <1453203972-24855-3-git-send-email-sshukla@mvista.com> Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:37:25 +0530 Message-ID: From: Santosh Shukla To: David Marchand Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 02/11] 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: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:07:26 -0000 On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 3:11 PM, David Marchand wrote: > Hello Santosh, > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Santosh Shukla > wrote: > > iopl() syscall not supported in linux-arm/arm64 so always return 0 value. > > > > Signed-off-by: Santosh Shukla > > Acked-by: Jan Viktorin > > Suggested-by: Stephen Hemminger > > I suppose when we will have more arches, this can be rewritten so that > iopl() check is only applied to x86 and all other arches get a 0 > return. > > Thats correct. And which is why I am holding my other patchset which actually move rte_eal_xx_iopl() stuff into arch specifics. I don't wanted to mix two topic in this series. Waiting for this series to get merged then abstract things like, iopl() and move "sys/io.h" in arch specifics and get rid of few ifdef X86 clutter across dpdk code. > How about such commit title ? > "eal/linux: never check iopl for arm" > even better, sending v6 change for this patch now, Thanks! > > > Regards, > -- > David Marchand >