> -----Original Message----- > From: Burakov, Anatoly <anatoly.bura...@intel.com> > Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2021 6:30 PM > To: Xia, Chenbo <chenbo....@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 1/2] vfio: make API return values consistent > > Hi Chenbo, > > > And do we need backport? As 'return -1' does not align with the API doxygen. > > > > Thanks, > > Chenbo > > > Maybe it's the FreeBSD implementation that needs to be adjusted then, > because none of those functions are valid on FreeBSD, and the > documentation for VFIO functions explicitly mentions that on FreeBSD, > they should return an error. I went with adjusting Linux implementation > to minimize the amount of changes we have to make (and only change code > path that no one uses in the first place), but maybe that was a wrong > decision. > > I'm not sure if changing the API return value to match what was > documented counts as an API change, so maybe backport to stable is not > advised here.
It's not a API change. My point is whether VFIO is present, users just use the API to check if vfio support is there. In a kernel version that does not support VFIO, he uses 'if(rte_vfio_is_enabled(XXX))' to check as the doxygen says its return value should be 1 as true or 0 as false. He will get true (-1) but VFIO is not there. That's why I think it's a bug and should be backported. But I think we can first discuss if we should drop the dummy implementation as DPDK requires Linux kernel version >= 4.4 now so VFIO is always present. I think it depends on by saying 'DPDK requires kernel version >= 4.4'. It's a real _requirement_ or only a recommendation? Ferruh, David & Thomas, What do you think? Thanks, Chenbo > > -- > Thanks, > Anatoly
