On 16/07/20 12:08 +0200, Gaëtan Rivet wrote:
> Re-CCing dev@dpdk.org as it was removed from the reply.
> 
> On 13/07/20 08:13 -0700, Manish Chopra wrote:
> > This is merely copy of latest linux/pci_regs.h in
> > order to avoid dependency of dpdk on user headers.
> > 
> 
> I guess this dependency is an issue on non-linux systems, when you must
> use those defines in a generic implementation. Can you confirm this is
> the motivation here?
> 
> If so, I think it would be clearer to state "in order to avoid
> dependency of DPDK on linux headers".
> 

To add to it, if this is actually the motivation to add this header, I
don't think it is sufficient.

You can restrict the function definition to the linux part of the
PCI bus driver instead, using stubs for other systems.

> > Signed-off-by: Manish Chopra <mani...@marvell.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Igor Russkikh <irussk...@marvell.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/bus/pci/linux/pci_uio.c     |    2 +-
> >  drivers/bus/pci/linux/pci_vfio.c    |    2 +-
> >  drivers/net/bnx2x/bnx2x.h           |    2 +-
> >  drivers/net/hns3/hns3_ethdev_vf.c   |    2 +-
> >  drivers/vdpa/ifc/base/ifcvf_osdep.h |    2 +-
> >  lib/librte_pci/Makefile             |    1 +
> >  lib/librte_pci/meson.build          |    2 +-
> >  lib/librte_pci/rte_pci_regs.h       | 1075 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  8 files changed, 1082 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >  create mode 100644 lib/librte_pci/rte_pci_regs.h
> > 
> 
> [...]
> 
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_pci/rte_pci_regs.h b/lib/librte_pci/rte_pci_regs.h
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000..1d11f4de5
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/lib/librte_pci/rte_pci_regs.h
> > @@ -0,0 +1,1075 @@
> > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note */
> > +/*
> 
> This file is delivered alongside the PCI lib, targeting userspace.
> This seems to be an exception to the license policy described in
> license/README. Code shared between kernel and userspace is expected
> to be dual-licensed BSD-3 and GPL-2.0.
> 
> As it is a copy of Linux user includes, re-licensing it as BSD-3 as well
> is not possible.
> 
> So I think it might require a techboard + governing board exception
> approval. Ferruh or Thomas, what do you think?
> 
> -- 
> Gaëtan

-- 
Gaëtan

Reply via email to