Hi Anatoly,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev <dev-boun...@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Anatoly Burakov
> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 6:37 PM
> To: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 1/2] vfio: make API return values consistent
>
> Currently, when VFIO support is not compiled, FreeBSD and Linux have
> different return values. Fix Linux implementation to follow FreeBSD one.
>
> Signed-off-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.bura...@intel.com>
> ---
>
> Notes:
> Current minimum support Linux kernel is 4.4, and Meson build file sets the
Do you mean currently DPDK support linux >= 4.4? I am not aware of this, could
you
show me where it is defined?
And do we need backport? As 'return -1' does not align with the API doxygen.
Thanks,
Chenbo
> RTE_EAL_VFIO config option to `true` simply because we are compiling for
> Linux.
> So, it looks like VFIO support is pretty much assumed on Linux, so i think
> we
> can safely drop the fallback dummy implementation from Linux altogether?
>
> lib/eal/linux/eal_vfio.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/eal/linux/eal_vfio.c b/lib/eal/linux/eal_vfio.c
> index 25add2fa5d..b9e4d3ad3c 100644
> --- a/lib/eal/linux/eal_vfio.c
> +++ b/lib/eal/linux/eal_vfio.c
> @@ -2111,19 +2111,19 @@ rte_vfio_enable(__rte_unused const char *modname)
> int
> rte_vfio_is_enabled(__rte_unused const char *modname)
> {
> - return -1;
> + return 0;
> }
>
> int
> rte_vfio_noiommu_is_enabled(void)
> {
> - return -1;
> + return 0;
> }
>
> int
> rte_vfio_clear_group(__rte_unused int vfio_group_fd)
> {
> - return -1;
> + return 0;
> }
>
> int
> --
> 2.25.1
