[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: fix compilation without VFIO

[Thomas Monjalon]

13/04/2018 11:11, Burakov, Anatoly:
> On 13-Apr-18 12:39 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 12/04/2018 16:13, Burakov, Anatoly:
> >> On 12-Apr-18 2:34 PM, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
> >>> a compilation error occurred when compiling with CONFIG_RTE_EAL_VFIO=n
> >>>
> >>> == Build lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal
> >>>     CC eal_vfio.o
> >>> /download/dpdk/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_vfio.c:1535:1: error: no
> >>> previous prototype for 'rte_vfio_dma_map' [-Werror=missing-prototypes]
> >>>    rte_vfio_dma_map(uint64_t __rte_unused vaddr, __rte_unused uint64_t
> >>> iova,
> >>>    ^
> >>> /download/dpdk/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_vfio.c:1542:1: error: no
> >>> previous prototype for 'rte_vfio_dma_unmap' [-Werror=missing-prototypes]
> >>>    rte_vfio_dma_unmap(uint64_t __rte_unused vaddr, uint64_t __rte_unused
> >>> iova,
> >>>    ^
> >>>
> >>> As there is no use for those dummy functions without VFIO removing them
> >>> completely.
> >>
> >> These functions are part of public API, like rest of functions in this
> >> header. They're in the map file. Should we perhaps go the BSD way and
> >> provide EAL with dummy prototypes as well? See bsdapp/eal/eal.c:763 onwards.
> > 
> > Why using dummy prototypes?
> > Because the prototypes in rte_vfio.h are under #ifdef VFIO_PRESENT ?
> > Is it possible to always define the prototypes in rte_vfio.h ?
> > 
> 
> Well, technically, yes, we could. There is one function that uses a 
> VFIO-specific struct definition:
> 
> int rte_vfio_setup_device(const char *sysfs_base, const char *dev_addr,
> 		int *vfio_dev_fd, struct vfio_device_info *device_info);
> 
> I'm sure we can work around that.


Removing dummy prototypes need, would be a nicer fix.