From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F4A4A050B; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 10:08:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EA3340689; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 10:08:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.187]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97D274014F for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 10:08:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from kwepemi500012.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.53]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4KYvBt657yzdZMh; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 16:08:06 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.67.103.128] (10.67.103.128) by kwepemi500012.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.24; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 16:08:34 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH] kni: fix device address set To: Thomas Monjalon CC: Stephen Hemminger , , References: <20220406082213.45750-1-humin29@huawei.com> <20220406081700.4aa2d9a7@hermes.local> <40f8ce34-982c-d96f-b1a7-d8381c36dcf1@huawei.com> <2364580.jE0xQCEvom@thomas> From: "Min Hu (Connor)" Message-ID: <81d69f4b-4d1f-6432-8d1f-c771fc2d8cb5@huawei.com> Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 16:08:34 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.3.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2364580.jE0xQCEvom@thomas> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gbk"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.67.103.128] X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems702-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.179) To kwepemi500012.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.12) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org OK, I see, thanks Thomas. ÔÚ 2022/4/7 15:42, Thomas Monjalon дµÀ: > 07/04/2022 02:44, Min Hu (Connor): >> Hi, Stephen, >> I think this is a good option, but the macro definition is like: >> +#if LINUX_VERSION_CODE < KERNEL_VERSION(3, 14, 0) >> +#define ether_addr_copy(dst, src) memcpy(dst, src, ETH_ALEN) >> +#endif >> >> @Ferry, why is it limited for "LINUX_VERSION_CODE < KERNEL_VERSION(3, >> 14, 0)" ? > > I guess that's because it is defined in "new kernels" so we need > a definition in DPDK for old kernels. > > > > . >