From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Received: from mail-pg0-f51.google.com (mail-pg0-f51.google.com [74.125.83.51])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BAB2F72
 for <users@dpdk.org>; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 18:45:16 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-pg0-f51.google.com with SMTP id 3so105213200pgd.0
 for <users@dpdk.org>; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 09:45:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=networkplumber-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
 h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references
 :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding;
 bh=ZU5/B627kDzpVEJ1JnfbkFCNSc02UKZKWnbmDz8xlJI=;
 b=bVkQRvoXia+u2fFmRR0yC11imEZF8loA5QlknHWlrW4R9wQKFcbB5lfhxZxFsK1htn
 QzJUG1VALOGyVXneiLd2kqBVggXgYeJC07AaNGmRSQSrgTNH5CEKEBlKW2wFS/FcCxHk
 0tXKAOVQfcxG1ymVhoZsAtuvfI+JB9zkPa7qq6L2de6FaN4oYODWQIQU+WQOVc+auy5a
 IcVMxK15/5AnNP9BtbnevkWR3PWb3pO8Yd5W9gx1AmlCbrnvC9oqHnGZQ07f1rXwL1s/
 pytJWJxl+y+U6Lp8YPFh037Gw6z4G/ke53Ytw6QHocSVtz2pnKl+jCSKN0Y7kYrW6CFX
 MBAQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
 h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to
 :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding;
 bh=ZU5/B627kDzpVEJ1JnfbkFCNSc02UKZKWnbmDz8xlJI=;
 b=G1iCzJlwM+uSyX2yTVEltgZR7dFalhHT8t/FHNDE/upFgVgZlf1Y2N1UfXAh2hL/uR
 oHlLrY6LohYcF1tJlR7cg0Q3EzBnBKFOFIPv2zRp0TxaJ21dXudjdXAmIpDu1Zb+xR3u
 ApUNgeg/QJcloKXNmKokMxBibBF+qgEHqyGs5OVMsSeJ1NyvZYiy+3NIeIgfTiqUpx2G
 ThPV2eu86LJocL0ABAUrbsrqPZL7T4s8FceKj4LGQ2S3hkm9/lPbKFiIPxvNaVSSNwD0
 4ec7kTEX+5SnkdXJxcgpAnPotlMnyEcH8Kn8dJgFXY4Yo/49360ezyqjJR636n+pUnti
 LDvQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC02CO2Wv/ytoAnAB8r2y9EdZRq5TLHtWUbon06UTT2MDkcSmQPjCoW+oAkHNuxgG7Q==
X-Received: by 10.99.149.90 with SMTP id t26mr1815183pgn.29.1479491115848;
 Fri, 18 Nov 2016 09:45:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from samsung9 (204-195-68-67.wavecable.com. [204.195.68.67])
 by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a30sm1356567pgd.45.2016.11.18.09.45.15
 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
 Fri, 18 Nov 2016 09:45:15 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 09:45:13 -0800
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
To: James Huang <jamsphon@gmail.com>
Cc: users@dpdk.org
Message-ID: <20161118094513.509019a4@samsung9>
In-Reply-To: <CAFpuyR5b26BVYYFkozeXNw9it42C1DoUS59hJdNO2KH7gGeKog@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFpuyR5b26BVYYFkozeXNw9it42C1DoUS59hJdNO2KH7gGeKog@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.14.0 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] DPDK Linux kernel version requirement
X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: usage discussions <users.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/users>,
 <mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/users/>
List-Post: <mailto:users@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/users>,
 <mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 17:45:17 -0000

On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 10:27:49 -0800
James Huang <jamsphon@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Nice to join DPDK community.
> 
> read from DPDK system requirements for Linux
> (http://dpdk.org/doc/guides/linux_gsg/sys_reqs.html)
> 
>   Kernel version >= 2.6.34
> 
> I'd like to know if there is any reason to block DPDK build and run on
> older kernel version, i.e. 2.6.32, as carried on CentOS 6. where
> gcc=4.4.
> 
> Could we just keep our CentOS 6 64bit x86_64 OS and continuing running
> 32bit applications with DPDK injected.
> 
> or, there are good reasons *must* upgrade to CentOS 7, where
> kernel=3.10.0, gcc=4.8, and re-build applications to 64bit as well?
> 
> Thanks a lot!
> 
> 
> James

There are kernel modules, and the DPDK developers have no incentive
do do all the back porting to older kernels. I suspect newer releases
will require 3.2 or later soon.