[ovs-dev] [PATCH] datapath: Tolerate backporting of rtnl_link_stats64 (as done on RHEL 6).

[Ben Pfaff]

On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 12:31:17PM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Ben Pfaff <blp at nicira.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 11:47:55AM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote:
> >> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Ben Pfaff <blp at nicira.com> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 05:42:59PM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Ben Pfaff <blp at nicira.com> wrote:
> >> >> > Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 has a 2.6.32 kernel but it backports the
> >> >> > rtnl_link_stats64 structure that was introduced in 2.6.35, so we need to
> >> >> > check whether it was defined instead of just guessing based on the kernel
> >> >> > version number.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Build-tested only, on 2.6.32-71.14.1.el6 (RHEL 6),
> >> >> > linux-2.6.18-128.1.6.el5.xs5.5.0.496.101 (XenServer 5.5.0),
> >> >> > 2.6.18-128.1.6.el5.xs5.5.0.505.1024xen (XenServer 5.5.0 update 1),
> >> >> > and upstream 2.6.18, 2.6.26, 2.6.29, 2.6.33, 2.6.34, 2.6.36, all for i386,
> >> >> > plus 2.6.36 for x86-64.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > My machine's userspace headers have <linux/if_link.h> but not
> >> >> > rtnl_link_stats64. ?I didn't test with other userspace headers.
> >> >>
> >> >> The problem that I ran into (and with this as well) is that the
> >> >> userspace header check never finds rtnl_link_stats64 even if it
> >> >> exists. ?So on my machine, which has 2.6.35 userspace and kernel, I
> >> >> get:
> >> >
> >> > When I edited my /usr/include/linux/if_link.h by hand to include
> >> > rtnl_link_stats64, everything built fine. ?So something else must be in
> >> > play here. ?What's in config.log regarding rtnl_link_stats64?
> >> >
> >> > What distro is on your machine?
> >>
> >> It's Ubuntu 10.10 but I found the problem: ?if_link.h includes
> >> netlink.h which uses sa_family_t which is defined in linux/socket.h
> >> but only in the kernel. ?If I add sys/socket.h to the include list in
> >> the macro everything works fine.
> >
> > OK, here's the patch again with (just) that change.
> 
> Looks good, thanks.

Pushed, thank you.