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.