From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [ [PATCH v2] 07/13] linuxapp: eal: arm: Always
 return 0 for rte_eal_iopl_init()
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 21:26:07 +0530
Message-ID: <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>
 <CAAyOgsbNfufrhFhFFHGoYACZNzMEjYngzZ1VPXePrwYz3AzN4A@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
To: Santosh Shukla <sshukla@mvista.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com
 (mail-bn1bon0099.outbound.protection.outlook.com [157.56.111.99])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 252288E90
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:56:43 +0100 (CET)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAAyOgsbNfufrhFhFFHGoYACZNzMEjYngzZ1VPXePrwYz3AzN4A@mail.gmail.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 08:54:08PM +0530, Santosh Shukla wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Jerin Jacob
> <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com> 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 <sshukla@mvista.com>
> >> ---
> >>  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

> 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

> 
> > 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
> >>