jesse at nicira.com
Wed Sep 1 18:48:54 UTC 2010
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 7:55 PM, Simon Horman <horms at verge.net.au> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:53:38PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:53 AM, Simon Horman <horms at verge.net.au> wrote:
>> > Hi Jesse,
>> > I just came across the following error:
>> > net/openvswitch/built-in.o:(.data+0x610): multiple definition of `brport_sysfs_ops'
>> > net/bridge/built-in.o:(.rodata+0x1140): first defined here
>> > I seem to recall some discussion of these sysfs entries at the meeting in
>> > Boston. Was the decision to remove them?
>> I'm not sure that we actually reached a decision regarding sysfs
>> entries. However, I would be inclined to remove them now and then
>> perhaps add a few back in later if needed. A lot of them are purely
>> for bridge compatibility and will most likely never make sense for
>> Open vSwitch. For the ones that do, we can figure it out once we know
>> exactly how they will be used in their own right.
> I think that is a good strategy.
>> Unfortunately, this can probably only be done for the upstreamed
>> version. Since a number of people are using bridge compatibility from
>> the Open vSwitch tree, we'll need to leave the sysfs code there. I'm
>> hoping that this won't be too difficult as the sysfs code is
>> relatively self contained.
> The following patch seems to do the trick.
> I'll include it in the merge.
This patch looks good but I think we can go a step farther. There's a
bunch of kobj stuff that is sprinkled around that was only used by
sysfs. I would be tempted to remove it now that we no longer need it.
More information about the dev