[adding the list back] On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 04:15:06PM -0800, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 04:04:24PM -0800, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > > > > > ... > > > > > hmmm... I believe we should look for features, not assume > > > their presence based on OS name. so I'd rather go for > > > KERNEL_DATAPATH and HAVE_* rather than __linux__ or __FreeBSD__. > > > > Feature tests are always nice, but a lot of the stuff protected by > > LINUX_DATAPATH is really Linux specific, like the structure of /proc. > > > > sure, and in fact that is one of the pieces where we did > not use LINUX_DATAPATH or KERNEL_DATAPATH but another > discriminant. But we found that LINUX_DATAPATH was for > the most part used to check for KERNEL_DATAPATH.
I don't have a clear picture of what userspace code there is in common between the Linux kernel datapath and the FreeBSD port. I guess this will become clear when I see the patches. > > > Also, our porting approach (which we found very effective in > > > many cases) remaps linux APIs into FreeBSD equivalent ones, > > > and for the most part there is a 1-1 mapping with > > > no significant performance hit at runtime. > > > > > > Using a handful of private, fine-grained HAVE_* names > > > makes the porting simpler. > > > > > > Daniele can probably send our current diff to see what > > > are the components involved. > > > > Why don't you just send along the patches and if they make sense we'll > > apply them. > > > > sure, i asked him to send them because i only have the diffs > for an older tree and so they would not apply directly > (assuming he is still awake; he is in italy, i am in berkeley). OK. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
