From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: "Xia, Chenbo" <chenbo.xia@intel.com>,
"Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>,
David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>,
Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 1/2] vfio: make API return values consistent
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2021 16:53:00 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9347411.UhhQB40C69@thomas> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <632abf1f-e912-4732-0c4e-893eb8679024@intel.com>
28/10/2021 13:32, Ferruh Yigit:
> On 10/28/2021 12:11 PM, Xia, Chenbo wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Burakov, Anatoly <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
> >> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2021 6:30 PM
> >> To: Xia, Chenbo <chenbo.xia@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 1/2] vfio: make API return values consistent
> >>
> >> Hi Chenbo,
> >>
> >>> And do we need backport? As 'return -1' does not align with the API doxygen.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Chenbo
> >>>
> >> Maybe it's the FreeBSD implementation that needs to be adjusted then,
> >> because none of those functions are valid on FreeBSD, and the
> >> documentation for VFIO functions explicitly mentions that on FreeBSD,
> >> they should return an error. I went with adjusting Linux implementation
> >> to minimize the amount of changes we have to make (and only change code
> >> path that no one uses in the first place), but maybe that was a wrong
> >> decision.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure if changing the API return value to match what was
> >> documented counts as an API change, so maybe backport to stable is not
> >> advised here.
> >
> > It's not a API change. My point is whether VFIO is present, users just use
> > the API to check if vfio support is there. In a kernel version that does not
> > support VFIO, he uses 'if(rte_vfio_is_enabled(XXX))' to check as the doxygen
> > says its return value should be 1 as true or 0 as false. He will get true (-1)
> > but VFIO is not there. That's why I think it's a bug and should be backported.
> >
> > But I think we can first discuss if we should drop the dummy implementation
> > as DPDK requires Linux kernel version >= 4.4 now so VFIO is always present.
> > I think it depends on by saying 'DPDK requires kernel version >= 4.4'. It's
> > a real _requirement_ or only a recommendation?
> >
> > Ferruh, David & Thomas, What do you think?
> >
>
> My understanding is, it is a requirement. DPDK does not guarantee support for
> kernels < 4.4.
Do we have a kernel version check at runtime?
I think we should add a warning if running too old kernel.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-28 14:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-16 10:36 Anatoly Burakov
2021-09-16 10:36 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 2/2] vfio: add errno on unsupported platforms Anatoly Burakov
2021-09-16 10:39 ` Bruce Richardson
2021-09-22 3:31 ` Xia, Chenbo
2021-09-22 3:30 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 1/2] vfio: make API return values consistent Xia, Chenbo
2021-09-22 9:26 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-09-22 11:30 ` Xia, Chenbo
2021-10-28 8:21 ` David Marchand
2021-10-28 10:29 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2021-10-28 11:11 ` Xia, Chenbo
2021-10-28 11:32 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-10-28 13:00 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2021-10-28 14:53 ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]
2021-10-28 15:40 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2021-10-28 16:38 ` Stephen Hemminger
2021-10-28 13:49 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] vfio: drop fallback Linux implementation Anatoly Burakov
2021-10-28 13:49 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/4] vfio: fix wrong return value for FreeBSD Anatoly Burakov
2021-10-28 13:49 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/4] vfio: fix documentation to match intended behavior Anatoly Burakov
2021-10-28 13:49 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/4] vfio: add errno on unsupported platforms Anatoly Burakov
2021-10-28 14:13 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2021-10-28 14:15 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/4] vfio: drop fallback Linux implementation Anatoly Burakov
2021-10-28 14:15 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/4] vfio: fix wrong return value for FreeBSD Anatoly Burakov
2021-11-05 2:50 ` Xia, Chenbo
2021-10-28 14:15 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 3/4] vfio: fix documentation to match intended behavior Anatoly Burakov
2021-11-05 2:57 ` [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] " Xia, Chenbo
2021-10-28 14:15 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 4/4] vfio: add errno on unsupported platforms Anatoly Burakov
2021-11-08 15:55 ` [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] " David Marchand
2021-11-01 6:27 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/4] vfio: drop fallback Linux implementation Xia, Chenbo
2021-11-01 13:57 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2021-11-05 2:48 ` Xia, Chenbo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=9347411.UhhQB40C69@thomas \
--to=thomas@monjalon.net \
--cc=anatoly.burakov@intel.com \
--cc=chenbo.xia@intel.com \
--cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).