diff mbox

[dpdk-dev,v5,02/11] linuxapp: eal: arm: Always return 0 for rte_eal_iopl_init()

Message ID 1453203972-24855-3-git-send-email-sshukla@mvista.com (mailing list archive)
State Superseded, archived
Delegated to: Thomas Monjalon
Headers

Commit Message

Santosh Shukla Jan. 19, 2016, 11:46 a.m. UTC 
  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>
Suggested-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
---
 lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal.c |    2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

Comments

David Marchand Jan. 21, 2016, 9:41 a.m. UTC | #1 
Hello Santosh,

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 12:46 PM, 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>
> Suggested-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>

I suppose when we will have more arches, this can be rewritten so that
iopl() check is only applied to x86 and all other arches get a 0
return.

How about such commit title ?
"eal/linux: never check iopl for arm"


Regards,
Santosh Shukla Jan. 21, 2016, 10:07 a.m. UTC | #2 
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 3:11 PM, David Marchand <david.marchand@6wind.com>
wrote:

> Hello Santosh,
>
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 12:46 PM, 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>
> > Suggested-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
>
> I suppose when we will have more arches, this can be rewritten so that
> iopl() check is only applied to x86 and all other arches get a 0
> return.
>
>
Thats correct. And which is why I am holding my other patchset which
actually move rte_eal_xx_iopl() stuff into arch specifics. I don't wanted
to mix two topic in this series. Waiting for this series to get merged then
abstract things like, iopl() and move "sys/io.h" in arch specifics and get
rid of few ifdef X86 clutter across dpdk code.


> How about such commit title ?
> "eal/linux: never check iopl for arm"
>

even better, sending v6 change for this patch now, Thanks!

>
>
> Regards,
> --
> David Marchand
>
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal.c b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal.c
index 635ec36..a2a3485 100644
--- a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal.c
+++ b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal.c
@@ -715,6 +715,8 @@  rte_eal_iopl_init(void)
 	if (iopl(3) != 0)
 		return -1;
 	return 0;
+#elif defined(RTE_ARCH_ARM) || defined(RTE_ARCH_ARM64)
+	return 0; /* iopl syscall not supported for ARM/ARM64 */
 #else
 	return -1;
 #endif