From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59204A04B5; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 10:37:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16E32140D1C; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 10:37:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [216.205.24.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FB35140D1B for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 10:37:15 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1610444234; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=0Sbhhv34yL/c5H05A1bnd4Kxb/ieiniSdtaznG8QSRU=; b=YsTmCmCjdNvFgWRccxbpxD9KMH4kJf7DgTm9BbFMYup5i1D7gW9WIUiyqoggZ+KDnvQ32X OUmul+D9ov69hVHtx8Izi7+jcQ96A7jGoSx5G7OF7djVTFEIbfxewJozg3VRbuPZ/e+XU6 TLC6AY27yP/AztyE/WymYydwM1h12mw= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-477-yGD7DLJCNgSNw3nyZX-m6Q-1; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 04:37:13 -0500 X-MC-Unique: yGD7DLJCNgSNw3nyZX-m6Q-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5EE101005E40; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 09:37:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.36.110.24] (unknown [10.36.110.24]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A7F66A90E; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 09:37:05 +0000 (UTC) To: =?UTF-8?B?6LCi5Y2O5LyfKOatpOaXtuatpOWIu++8iQ==?= , ferruh.yigit@intel.com Cc: dev@dpdk.org, anatoly.burakov@intel.com, david.marchand@redhat.com, zhihong.wang@intel.com, chenbo.xia@intel.com, grive@u256.net References: <68ecd941-9c56-4de7-fae2-2ad15bdfd81a@alibaba-inc.com> <1603381885-88819-1-git-send-email-huawei.xhw@alibaba-inc.com> <1603381885-88819-4-git-send-email-huawei.xhw@alibaba-inc.com> From: Maxime Coquelin Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 10:37:03 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1603381885-88819-4-git-send-email-huawei.xhw@alibaba-inc.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.15 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=maxime.coquelin@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 3/3] PCI: don't use vfio ioctl call to access PIO resource X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" bus/pci: ... On 10/22/20 5:51 PM, 谢华伟(此时此刻） wrote: > From: "huawei.xhw" > > VFIO should use the same way to map/read/write PORT IO as UIO, for > virtio PMD. Please provide more details in the commit message on why the way VFIO works today is wrong (The cover letter is lost once applied). > Signed-off-by: huawei.xhw Same comment about name format as on previous patches. > --- > drivers/bus/pci/linux/pci.c | 8 ++++---- > drivers/bus/pci/linux/pci_uio.c | 4 +++- > 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/bus/pci/linux/pci.c b/drivers/bus/pci/linux/pci.c > index 0dc99e9..2ed9f2b 100644 > --- a/drivers/bus/pci/linux/pci.c > +++ b/drivers/bus/pci/linux/pci.c > @@ -687,7 +687,7 @@ int rte_pci_write_config(const struct rte_pci_device *device, > #ifdef VFIO_PRESENT > case RTE_PCI_KDRV_VFIO: > if (pci_vfio_is_enabled()) > - ret = pci_vfio_ioport_map(dev, bar, p); > + ret = pci_uio_ioport_map(dev, bar, p); Doesn't it create a regression with regards to needed capabilities? My understanding is that before this patch we don't need to call iopl(), whereas once applied it is required, correct? Regards, Maxime