From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> To: Jincheng Miao <jmiao@redhat.com> Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] igb_uio: compatible with upstream longterm kernel and RHEL6 Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 17:42:48 +0100 Message-ID: <3179225.WT7VCi68g0@xps13> (raw) In-Reply-To: <54782EB5.7060409@redhat.com> 2014-11-28 16:13, Jincheng Miao: > > On 11/28/2014 01:01 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 2014-10-31 15:37, Jincheng Miao: > >> Function pci_num_vf() is introduced from upstream linux-2.6.34. So > >> this patch make compatible with longterm kernel linux-2.6.32.63. > >> > >> For RHEL6's kernel, although it is based on linux-2.6.32, it has > >> pci_num_vf() implementation. As the same with commit 11ba0426, > >> pci_num_vf() is defined from RHEL6. So we should check the macro > >> RHEL_RELEASE_CODE to consider this situation. > > > > Please, could you explain in which case CONFIG_PCI_IOV is defined? > > The logic is a bit difficult to understand. > > Yep, there is a little confusion for pci_num_vf(): > 1. it is available when CONFIG_PCI_IOV is defined. > 2. it is introduced from upstream kernel v2.6.34 (fb8a0d9) > 3. it is implemented from RHEL6.0, although the kernel version is 2.6.32. Sorry, you didn't described when CONFIG_PCI_IOV is defined. Is it defined since 2.6.34 upstream? In lower stable versions? Is it defined since RHEL 6.0? Why checking CONFIG_PCI_IOV is not sufficient? When pci_num_vf will be backported in other distributions, we will have to tune this check and clearly understand what was the situation. > The logic of this patch is: > #if LINUX_VERSION_CODE < KERNEL_VERSION(2, 6, 34) && \ > (!(defined(RHEL_RELEASE_CODE) && RHEL_RELEASE_CODE >= > RHEL_RELEASE_VERSION(6, 0) && defined(CONFIG_PCI_IOV))) > > Firstly it detects kernel version, if it is less than 2.6.34, and it is > not RHEL-specified, then define pci_num_vf(). > > Secondly, it deals with RHEL-specified. If it is RHEL6.0 or later, and > CONFIG_PCI_IOV is defined. we should not define pci_num_vf(). If any of > these conditions is not reached, pci_num_vf() should be defined. I can read the check but I don't know why CONFIG_PCI_IOV is checked in the RHEL case. > Some days ago, I setup dpdk for longterm kernel 2.6.32.63, and got error: > ``` > CC [M] > /root/dpdk-source/build/build/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/igb_uio/igb_uio.o > /root/dpdk-source/build/build/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/igb_uio/igb_uio.c: > In function ‘show_max_vfs’: > /root/dpdk-source/build/build/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/igb_uio/igb_uio.c:75: > error: implicit declaration of function ‘pci_num_vf’ > ``` Thank you. Describing the problem is helpful for the commit log. > This problem is introduced by commit 11ba04265 > > commit 11ba04265cfd2a53c12c030fcaa5dfe7eed39a42 > Author: Guillaume Gaudonville <guillaume.gaudonville@6wind.com> > Date: Wed Sep 3 10:18:23 2014 +0200 > > igb_uio: fix build on RHEL 6.3 > > - pci_num_vf() is already defined in RHEL 6 > - pci_intx_mask_supported is already defined in RHEL 6.3 > - pci_check_and_mask_intx is already defined in RHEL 6.3 > > Signed-off-by: Guillaume Gaudonville <guillaume.gaudonville@6wind.com> > Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.marchand@6wind.com> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> > > +#if LINUX_VERSION_CODE < KERNEL_VERSION(2, 6, 34) && \ > + !defined(CONFIG_PCI_IOV) > > That is because longterm kernel 2.6.32.63 defined CONFIG_PCI_IOV, but it > lacks pci_num_vf(), > after above processing, pci_num_vf() is still not existed, then build fail. > > My patch could work around it, and can deal with RHEL-specified kernel. Thanks, we just need to understand the matrix of combinations to be sure it will be well maintained. -- Thomas
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-11-28 16:43 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2014-10-31 7:37 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/2] compatibility fallback and replacement of kernel function invoking Jincheng Miao 2014-10-31 7:37 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] igb_uio: compatible with upstream longterm kernel and RHEL6 Jincheng Miao 2014-11-27 17:01 ` Thomas Monjalon 2014-11-28 8:13 ` Jincheng Miao 2014-11-28 16:42 ` Thomas Monjalon [this message] 2014-12-02 4:01 ` Jincheng Miao 2014-10-31 7:37 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] eal: replace strict_strtoul with kstrtoul Jincheng Miao 2014-11-28 16:45 ` Thomas Monjalon
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=3179225.WT7VCi68g0@xps13 \ --to=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \ --cc=dev@dpdk.org \ --cc=jmiao@redhat.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
DPDK patches and discussions This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone: git clone --mirror https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/0 dev/git/0.git # If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may # initialize and index your mirror using the following commands: public-inbox-init -V2 dev dev/ https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev \ dev@dpdk.org public-inbox-index dev Example config snippet for mirrors. Newsgroup available over NNTP: nntp://inbox.dpdk.org/inbox.dpdk.dev AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git