On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob at 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 at 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 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(). > 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 >>
