On Aug 29, 2011, at 7:17 AM, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Aug 29, 2011 3:56 PM, "Justin Pettit" <jpet...@nicira.com> wrote:
> > diff --git a/datapath/linux/compat/include/linux/netdevice.h
> > b/datapath/linux/compat/include/linux/netdevice.h
> > index 04ebd89..664ff2e 100644
> > --- a/datapath/linux/compat/include/linux/netdevice.h
> > +++ b/datapath/linux/compat/include/linux/netdevice.h
> > @@ -74,7 +74,14 @@ extern void unregister_netdevice_many(struct list_head
> > *head);
> > #endif
> >
> > #ifndef HAVE_DEV_DISABLE_LRO
> > -extern void dev_disable_lro(struct net_device *dev);
> > +/* Some distributions (e.g., RHEL5) backported LRO support, but not the
> > + * userspace interface to adjust them, so it is necessary to call
> > + * dev_disable_lro() from the kernel. If this is an older kernel with
> > + * LRO support, then we assume that they either backported
> > + * dev_disable_lro() or provided the userspace interface. In either
> > + * case, it's a no-op.
> > + */
> > +static inline void dev_disable_lro(struct net_device *dev) { }
>
> I don't think it's a very good idea to have a backport that doesn't do the
> same thing as the upstream version (where possible). So while in this case
> we know that if the function is called it will be a no-op, it's confusing to
> enforce that and unnecessary because of the version guard around the actual
> call.
>
> I would keep the backport and move the comment to call site. The compiled
> result should be the same, of course.
Okay, I'll send out a revised version shortly.
--Justin
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
