From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] igb_uio: compatible with upstream longterm kernel and RHEL6 Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 18:01:27 +0100 Message-ID: <7579030.6nSHmmQ36o@xps13> References: <1414741039-3531-1-git-send-email-jmiao@redhat.com> <1414741039-3531-2-git-send-email-jmiao@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org To: Jincheng Miao Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1414741039-3531-2-git-send-email-jmiao-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" 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. > #if LINUX_VERSION_CODE < KERNEL_VERSION(2, 6, 34) && \ > - !defined(CONFIG_PCI_IOV) > + (!(defined(RHEL_RELEASE_CODE) && \ > + RHEL_RELEASE_CODE >= RHEL_RELEASE_VERSION(6, 0) && \ > + defined(CONFIG_PCI_IOV))) > > static int pci_num_vf(struct pci_dev *dev) > {