bus/pci: ... On 10/22/20 5:51 PM, 谢华伟(此时此刻） wrote: > From: "huawei.xhw" <huawei....@alibaba-inc.com> > > 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 <huawei....@alibaba-inc.com> 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
