Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] librte_pmd_packet: add PMD for AF_PACKET-based virtual devices

["Shaw, Jeffrey B" <jeffrey.b.shaw@intel.com>]

2.6.32 is minimum, but I believe still needs patches to fix hugetlbfs issues.
I think the first kernel which had all the features we need, and doesn't require patches, is 2.6.33.6.
Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 7:27 AM
To: John W. Linville
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] librte_pmd_packet: add PMD for AF_PACKET-based virtual devices

2014-07-16 10:07, John W. Linville:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:27:45PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 2014-07-14 09:46, John W. Linville:
> > > On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 12:34:46AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > > 2014-07-11 13:40, John W. Linville:
> > > > > Is there an example of code in DPDK that requires specific 
> > > > > kernel versions?  What is the preferred method for coding such 
> > > > > dependencies?
> > > > 
> > > > No there is no userspace code checking kernel version in DPDK.
> > > > Feel free to use what you think the best method.
> > > > Please keep in mind that checking version number is a 
> > > > maintenance nightmare because of backports (like RedHat do ;).
> > > 
> > > I suppose that it could be a configuration option?
> > 
> > If there is no other way to configure kernel-dependent features, we 
> > can add options. But I feel that relying on a macro (#ifdef) would 
> > be better if such macro exist.
> 
> I can add #ifdef or #if defined() for the newer definitions.  Is there 
> a minimum kernel version supported today?

2.6.32 is the minimum version.
But it's known to be easily usable since Linux 2.6.34.

--
Thomas