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 DC915A0C4E for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 10:40:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0F9A4003C; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 10:40:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from youngberry.canonical.com (youngberry.canonical.com [91.189.89.112]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92F534003C for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 10:40:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-qv1-f69.google.com ([209.85.219.69]) by youngberry.canonical.com with esmtps (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from ) id 1lrGEO-00076B-7k for stable@dpdk.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 08:40:04 +0000 Received: by mail-qv1-f69.google.com with SMTP id h10-20020a0cab0a0000b029020282c64ecfso19860554qvb.19 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 01:40:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=KiC+JHV86F49KXvwR1/iROVpaTpMWDrc2mw4FuRmSTo=; b=bauAxLZVyE0/RA2l0tJ4SlFL3mqYH/0ctxWBwgi0Sm7seqAl/PgRyrjMOkLxfN+6Sw nMb/Zwykj63lj0oMmQpKUarGVydR2yqDoS5NUt+qELBZqHuuOooCVaD/DEbKbw+Z6Dqc tHgBj9j1Go8/Ia6H8y+DsJgahUBTacUck6KRvuonNosLRb+tLreDU5H8ZZVJPbM9eGY5 Sr3Anxt7w6ju3EENuQ9IKZeihhLR3XYSnfQgGxGpJKe+5rngCqlo1fPjOZ1DwO85B/oe Oxk8S03ujIWlb4/bXxFZcfhI1NTz1hJ66Xh9bNXD2y/VUzDE2QvTHkOvWUCw73qWEb6n 3wJQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531jsXHoWd15V0a/E4EXQuYHjXk/0zNG9ojx5yTKUj5Ou2xjC2L+ 6mdnQjxbkYoCXmRIMlNl93ahPCvAolROTAJRW5QfAvpXRL0ONWmdTMtlWwNoPSRXXJ89oZTEhuH DACHr/loeorNJtiT6OvVUu90ygg1iDPUkOKfCt3m9 X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7c4b:: with SMTP id o11mr4040434qtv.336.1623314403330; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 01:40:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxwQHzbhCJ4iMnzLazDHj0elIBsnXEFExQfd+xS0AzW64OeaRAXlj+RqsLUNCatmo/hVNQrpJePJYedIEDOQxE= X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7c4b:: with SMTP id o11mr4040413qtv.336.1623314402927; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 01:40:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210602143317.2333707-1-christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com> <95714253-c0a5-9cbc-31ed-918e158c8109@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <95714253-c0a5-9cbc-31ed-918e158c8109@intel.com> From: Christian Ehrhardt Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 10:39:37 +0200 Message-ID: To: Ferruh Yigit Cc: dev , Thomas Monjalon , dpdk stable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] kni: fix compilation on SLES15-SP3 X-BeenThere: stable@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: patches for DPDK stable branches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: stable-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "stable" On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 1:17 PM Ferruh Yigit wrote: > > On 6/2/2021 3:33 PM, Christian Ehrhardt wrote: > > Like what was done for mainline kernel in commit 38ad54f3bc76 ("kni: fix > > build with Linux 5.6"), a new parameter 'txqueue' has to be added to > > 'ndo_tx_timeout' ndo on SLES 15-SP3 kernel. > > > > Caused by: > > commit c3bf155c40e9db722feb8a08c19efd44c12d5294 > > Author: Thomas Bogendoerfer > > Date: Fri Sep 11 16:08:31 2020 +0200 > > - netdev: pass the stuck queue to the timeout handler > > (jsc#SLE-13536). > > - Refresh patches.suse/sfc-move-various-functions.patch. > > > > That is part of the SLES 5.3.18 kernel and therefore the > > version we check for. > > > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org > > > > Signed-off-by: Christian Ehrhardt > > Hi Christian, > > There is a build error reported in CI [1] with 'SUSE15-64'. > Can't the check 'linux version >= 5.3.18" may hit multiple SUSE versions, with > some has the patch mentioned above backported and some did not? > Can 'SLE_VERSION_CODE' be used to differentiate the SUSE versions? I don't have a perfect insight in the SUSE distro variants and their kernel versions. > 5.3.18 in SLES15-SP3 was what broke it and I have hoped that this would apply in general. But the error above seems we have others that are > 5.3.18 but at the same time not have the backport. I'll try to create a v3, but do we have anyone from Suse to usually directly ping for feedback on this? > [1] > http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/test-report/2021-June/197571.html > > > --- > > kernel/linux/kni/compat.h | 4 +++- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/kernel/linux/kni/compat.h b/kernel/linux/kni/compat.h > > index 5f65640d5ed..70e014fd1da 100644 > > --- a/kernel/linux/kni/compat.h > > +++ b/kernel/linux/kni/compat.h > > @@ -133,7 +133,9 @@ > > > > #if KERNEL_VERSION(5, 6, 0) <= LINUX_VERSION_CODE || \ > > (defined(RHEL_RELEASE_CODE) && \ > > - RHEL_RELEASE_VERSION(8, 3) <= RHEL_RELEASE_CODE) > > + RHEL_RELEASE_VERSION(8, 3) <= RHEL_RELEASE_CODE) || \ > > + (defined(CONFIG_SUSE_KERNEL) && \ > > + KERNEL_VERSION(5, 3, 18) <= LINUX_VERSION_CODE) > > Can you please add comment here to clarify for which SUSE version this check is > added? I outlined that in the commit message already, and since the RH8.3 check above was added without inline comment I kept the same style. With the updated v3 it will be readable from the code as I'll try (SLE_VERSION_CODE >= SLE_VERSION(15, 3, 0) I'll submit the v3 after it has passed my test builds which include - SLE_12_SP4 - SLE_15 - openSUSE_Factory_ARM - openSUSE_Leap_15.2 - openSUSE_Leap_42.3 - openSUSE_Tumbleweed And of those SLE_15 was the one affected without this fix due to their new new kernel. > > #define HAVE_TX_TIMEOUT_TXQUEUE > > #endif > > > > > -- Christian Ehrhardt Staff Engineer, Ubuntu Server Canonical Ltd