On 9/22/2021 4:30 AM, Xia, Chenbo wrote: > 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? >
https://git.dpdk.org/dpdk/tree/doc/guides/linux_gsg/sys_reqs.rst?h=v21.08#n124 Commit d2feae68bf30 ("doc: update minimum supported Linux kernel") > 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 >
