| Message ID | 1450098032-21198-8-git-send-email-sshukla@mvista.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded, archived |
| Headers |
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> X-Original-To: patchwork@dpdk.org Delivered-To: patchwork@dpdk.org Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEA528E8E; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 14:01:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-pf0-f174.google.com (mail-pf0-f174.google.com [209.85.192.174]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AE048E9B for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 14:01:04 +0100 (CET) Received: by pfbu66 with SMTP id u66so60960359pfb.3 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 05:01:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mvista-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references; bh=oijmrfYbjv5AeAalPYKCZBVPvlXh417xCoHQKv5cAA8=; b=rDTDsM06UAarteem9ejkt2lcEaNKCQuClwox4hgLG06ywZh8kfrlxP5OcBKW9W+/FO owAD8xpGqApTsmoyJPTbY3yDWvdMAeQtL6IvlO8T9t35teRAeLgkmIelb1pyay6Luw1z 8Kc5i+LmMgyh+NQbpO0XzyRIQGLYkob3HPE7PzYY+DyzOTkIEk4u4dNSQLxK8lOQS91Q UltNPX5x2WrOrq7qZ56h2vQqVDnWRYMABL7/W3duswL2PeSYhtFzppykGfjO0FOKwoga U/wI4p+oFNOtRTht9wklVfmNoAKEdMahkF+Y7O7PrD44ji+6W+wISzfPtmlbh4vBAUBA e4Gg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references; bh=oijmrfYbjv5AeAalPYKCZBVPvlXh417xCoHQKv5cAA8=; b=lDlkpmruty/sE/igsiVP/u1ufY2FBfiD+9dloFUpn2PSFhBivBlBrpQinrNJBaUHyW 0u0kKiGVMDSQ64n7511GFuiWNlyZZDmSxRCcD9Y7eIDrBn0Io9opfLrDJtYWw+uqrRlN ES2G9mmKNU4CWc263BtINHTPytHwrJ78fN+ZjWNO/fTw9UCwjxl2YmdUaCDC4w55depj +Kd4qLEeSmcDznNDG89Waagk6V5Fc4YSk4V+qtFADMeR7F8sRqxJuqelcRqRKndD1M+J MHFPiSzDpnsOz2MEucD+9wmPnBwk7/6OFdglgAawWdkLu58UwllCx5f1dE/XwURe7JP1 T1TQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmKvAcQlisKGcoBueMv1pI9QVOMJWeURro2+vN6SVNs4taOJZsESHNK8TB3xgKuXdB7b0PrpHoV214EeN3Dv8ZY+1m09w== X-Received: by 10.98.42.208 with SMTP id q199mr5685436pfq.1.1450098063827; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 05:01:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from santosh-Latitude-E5530-non-vPro.mvista.com ([110.172.16.5]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 9sm42506405pfn.51.2015.12.14.05.01.00 (version=TLS1_1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 14 Dec 2015 05:01:02 -0800 (PST) From: Santosh Shukla <sshukla@mvista.com> To: dev@dpdk.org Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 18:30:26 +0530 Message-Id: <1450098032-21198-8-git-send-email-sshukla@mvista.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.7.9.5 In-Reply-To: <1450098032-21198-1-git-send-email-sshukla@mvista.com> References: <1450098032-21198-1-git-send-email-sshukla@mvista.com> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [ [PATCH v2] 07/13] linuxapp: eal: arm: Always return 0 for rte_eal_iopl_init() X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/> List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> |
Commit Message
Santosh Shukla
Dec. 14, 2015, 1 p.m. UTC
iopl() syscall not supported in linux-arm/arm64 so always return 0 value.
Signed-off-by: Santosh Shukla <sshukla@mvista.com>
---
lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
Comments
I believe, I've already acked this patch. I can see no change here so I assume it's still the same. On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 18:30:26 +0530 Santosh Shukla <sshukla@mvista.com> wrote: > iopl() syscall not supported in linux-arm/arm64 so always return 0 value. > > Signed-off-by: Santosh Shukla <sshukla@mvista.com> Acked-by: Jan Viktorin <viktorin@rehivetech.com>
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@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 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 >
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Jan Viktorin <viktorin@rehivetech.com> wrote: > I believe, I've already acked this patch. I can see no change here so I > assume it's still the same. > > On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 18:30:26 +0530 > Santosh Shukla <sshukla@mvista.com> wrote: > > > iopl() syscall not supported in linux-arm/arm64 so always return 0 value. > > > > Signed-off-by: Santosh Shukla <sshukla@mvista.com> > Acked-by: Jan Viktorin <viktorin@rehivetech.com> > Sorry that I missed in v2 patch! Gonna add in next revision. Thanks
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@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@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 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(). > 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 >>
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@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@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 > >>
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 9:26 PM, Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com> wrote: > 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@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@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 > make sense to me :) >> 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 > Right! We'll do in v3, Thanks!! >> >> > 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 >> >>
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 */ +#endif return -1; #endif }