On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 10:15:04AM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote: > On 3/22/2017 10:04 AM, David Woodhouse wrote: > > On Wed, 2017-03-22 at 09:54 -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote: > >> On 3/22/2017 9:25 AM, David Woodhouse wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> +#ifdef __aarch64__ > >>> +/* ARM64 wants to be special and not expose this through /proc > >>> like everyone else */ > >>> +#undef HAVE_PCI_MMAP > >>> +#endif > >>> + > >> Where is this ARM64 special requirement coming from? > > > > The idea is that as a new platform, ARM64 shouldn't need to implement > > legacy userspace interfaces. > > > > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2016-April/422571.html > > > > Aren't we breaking an ABI for userspace? I know DPDK relies on this feature. It relies on the /proc interface? That's the first I've ever heard of that -- everybody so far has only been interested in the sysfs stuff. Nothing's more broken than before, because we've never supported the /proc interface, but if existing arm64 code out there is failing because of that then I'm of course open to supporting it. I'm just surprised that nobody else has come up with that before, since DPDK is in common use. Can you point me at the specific code, please? Will
