Hi Stephen,
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 09:42:53AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
(...)
> > I'd see an API more or less like this :
> >
> > int ioport(int op, u16 port, long val, long *ret);
> >
> > would take values such as INB,INW,INL to fill *, OUTB,OUTW,OUL
> > to read from , possibly ORB,OR
> On Oct 28, 2019, at 10:43 AM, Stephen Hemminger
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 08:42:25 +0200
> Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
>> Hi Andy,
>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 09:45:56PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> Hi all-
>>>
>>> Supporting iopl() in the Linux kernel is becoming a maintainability
On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 08:42:25 +0200
Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 09:45:56PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > Hi all-
> >
> > Supporting iopl() in the Linux kernel is becoming a maintainability
> > problem. As far as I know, DPDK is the only major modern user of
>
On Fri, 25 Oct 2019, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > I'd see an API more or less like this :
> >
> > int ioport(int op, u16 port, long val, long *ret);
>
> Hmm. I have some memory of a /dev/ioport or similar, but now I can't
> find it. It does seem quite reasonable.
crw-r- 1 root kmem 1, 4 Se
On Fri, 25 Oct 2019, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 21:45:56 -0700
> Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > 3. Use ioperm() instead of iopl().
>
> Ioperm has the wrong thread semantics. All DPDK applications have
> multiple threads and the initialization logic needs to work even
> if the thre
Hi Andy,
On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 09:45:56PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Hi all-
>
> Supporting iopl() in the Linux kernel is becoming a maintainability
> problem. As far as I know, DPDK is the only major modern user of
> iopl().
>
> After doing some research, DPDK uses direct io port access
On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 07:45:47AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> But, for uses like DPDK, /sys/.../resource0 seems like a *far* better
> API, since it actually uses the kernel's concept of which io range
> corresponds to which device instead of hoping that the mappings don't
> change out from und
> On Oct 25, 2019, at 9:13 AM, Stephen Hemminger
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 21:45:56 -0700
> Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>> Hi all-
>>
>> Supporting iopl() in the Linux kernel is becoming a maintainability
>> problem. As far as I know, DPDK is the only major modern user of
>> iopl().
>>
>>
On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 21:45:56 -0700
Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Hi all-
>
> Supporting iopl() in the Linux kernel is becoming a maintainability
> problem. As far as I know, DPDK is the only major modern user of
> iopl().
>
> After doing some research, DPDK uses direct io port access for only a
> s
On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 11:42 PM Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> Hi Andy,
>
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 09:45:56PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > Hi all-
> >
> > Supporting iopl() in the Linux kernel is becoming a maintainability
> > problem. As far as I know, DPDK is the only major modern user of
> >
Hello Andy,
On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 6:46 AM Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Supporting iopl() in the Linux kernel is becoming a maintainability
> problem. As far as I know, DPDK is the only major modern user of
> iopl().
Thanks for reaching out.
Copying our virtio maintainers (Maxime and Tiwei), since
Hi all-
Supporting iopl() in the Linux kernel is becoming a maintainability
problem. As far as I know, DPDK is the only major modern user of
iopl().
After doing some research, DPDK uses direct io port access for only a
single purpose: accessing legacy virtio configuration structures.
These struc
12 matches
Mail list logo
