On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Jesse Gross <je...@kernel.org> wrote: > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Pravin B Shelar <pshe...@ovn.org> wrote: >> diff --git a/datapath/linux/compat/include/net/dst_cache.h >> b/datapath/linux/compat/include/net/dst_cache.h >> new file mode 100644 >> index 0000000..5904f2c >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/datapath/linux/compat/include/net/dst_cache.h > [...] >> +#define ovs_dst_cache_get dst_cache_get >> +struct dst_entry *ovs_dst_cache_get(struct dst_cache *dst_cache); > > I believe these are all straight backports of what is upstream. Given > that, maybe rpl_ is more appropriate than ovs_? Usually, the ovs_ > functions are ones that have required different functionality in some > way. > Since whole dst-cache module is backport, I used ovs_ prefix. But I am fine with rpm_ prefix also.
>> diff --git a/datapath/linux/compat/utils.c b/datapath/linux/compat/utils.c >> index 0ee6e80..7008ecf 100644 >> --- a/datapath/linux/compat/utils.c >> +++ b/datapath/linux/compat/utils.c >> @@ -65,3 +65,28 @@ bool rpl___net_get_random_once(void *buf, int nbytes, >> bool *done, >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rpl___net_get_random_once); >> >> #endif >> + >> +#ifdef NEED_ALLOC_PERCPU_GFP >> +void __percpu *__alloc_percpu_gfp(size_t size, size_t align, gfp_t gfp) > > It looks like on 4.6 at least, this is just a call to pcpu_alloc(), > which exists back to 3.10. Is there a reason that we need something > more? I am not sure which 4.6 are looking at; But the release kernel used gfp version. http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/net/core/dst_cache.c#L144 _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
