From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Burakov, Anatoly" Subject: Re: [PATCH] eal: fix compilation without VFIO Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 10:11:49 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20180412133422.104155-1-shahafs@mellanox.com> <7325634.395TUUszRC@xps> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Shahaf Shuler To: Thomas Monjalon Return-path: Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01C761B76F for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2018 11:11:54 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <7325634.395TUUszRC@xps> Content-Language: en-US List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 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. -- Thanks, Anatoly