[Xen-ia64-devel] Re: [Xen-devel][PATCH][RESEND] PV drivers for HVM guests

[Doi.Tsunehisa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Hi Ian,

You (Ian.Campbell) said:
> I'd much prefer it if we can find a way to avoid encoding specific RHEL
> kernel versions as you had in your patch. I've gone with
>       #define gfp_t unsigned
> which basically ignores any existing typedef. I think this is OK in this
> instance since gfp_t has always been 
   .....
> My current patch is below, it cross-compiles for IA64 without warnings
> against RHEL4.4 and SLES9sp3. Could you let me know if it works for you?
> If so would you mind submitting the ia64 bits via the ia64 maintainer.
> I'll apply the unmodified_drivers bits.

  Takanori (he is my co-worker) checked this patch, but it occures
compile error in linux-xen. We are investigating it.

>>   BTW, I might find a issue about NET_IP_ALIGN in the compatible shim.
>> Currentry, its value is 0, but the value should be matched a value of
>> netback module. Thus, its value should be 2, I think.
>> 
>>   What do you think about the issue ?
>
> My thinking was that since those older kernels don't define NET_IP_ALIGN
> and don't hardcode the number 2 anywhere they don't expect any extra
> alignment. Therefore using 0 seems correct in terms of behaving the same
> as native drivers do on those versions. I'm not sure I would want to
> backport the addition of the extra padding in our drivers, the distros
> haven't seen the need for example...

  Hmm, I thought that NET_IF_ALIGN mismatch between netfront and netback
occures a confusion of VNIF. But I might be imagining if it was used
correctly.

  Is it used on SLES9 guest ? I don't have the environment.

Thanks,
- Tsunehisa Doi

_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel