Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: fix compilation without VFIO

["Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>]

On 13-Apr-18 12:39 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 12/04/2018 16:13, Burakov, Anatoly:
>> On 12-Apr-18 2:34 PM, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
>>> a compilation error occurred when compiling with CONFIG_RTE_EAL_VFIO=n
>>>
>>> == Build lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal
>>>     CC eal_vfio.o
>>> /download/dpdk/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_vfio.c:1535:1: error: no
>>> previous prototype for 'rte_vfio_dma_map' [-Werror=missing-prototypes]
>>>    rte_vfio_dma_map(uint64_t __rte_unused vaddr, __rte_unused uint64_t
>>> iova,
>>>    ^
>>> /download/dpdk/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_vfio.c:1542:1: error: no
>>> previous prototype for 'rte_vfio_dma_unmap' [-Werror=missing-prototypes]
>>>    rte_vfio_dma_unmap(uint64_t __rte_unused vaddr, uint64_t __rte_unused
>>> iova,
>>>    ^
>>>
>>> As there is no use for those dummy functions without VFIO removing them
>>> completely.
>>
>> These functions are part of public API, like rest of functions in this
>> header. They're in the map file. Should we perhaps go the BSD way and
>> provide EAL with dummy prototypes as well? See bsdapp/eal/eal.c:763 onwards.
> 
> Why using dummy prototypes?
> Because the prototypes in rte_vfio.h are under #ifdef VFIO_PRESENT ?
> Is it possible to always define the prototypes in rte_vfio.h ?
> 

Well, technically, yes, we could. There is one function that uses a 
VFIO-specific struct definition:

int rte_vfio_setup_device(const char *sysfs_base, const char *dev_addr,
		int *vfio_dev_fd, struct vfio_device_info *device_info);

I'm sure we can work around that.

-- 
Thanks,
Anatoly