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 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
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 > >>
