[PATCH] backport: allow compilation with Ubuntu's 3.13

[PATCH] backport: allow compilation with Ubuntu's 3.13

[Emmanuel Grumbach]

Canonical backported:

Author: Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@mellanox.com>
Date:   Mon Jan 20 13:59:19 2014 +0200

    net: Add GRO support for UDP encapsulating protocols

This is commit 2da204a8f67fbe25816cbce8cc8551f03d5b951a in their
tree.
Cope with that.

Signed-off-by: Emmanuel Grumbach <emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com>
---
Touch compiled only. And I don't really know how the UTS thing goes :)
---
 backport/backport-include/linux/netdevice.h | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/backport/backport-include/linux/netdevice.h b/backport/backport-include/linux/netdevice.h
index bb3fefb..61ac95c 100644
--- a/backport/backport-include/linux/netdevice.h
+++ b/backport/backport-include/linux/netdevice.h
@@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ static inline void dev_consume_skb_any(struct sk_buff *skb)
 	dev_kfree_skb_any(skb);
 }
 
+#if (LINUX_VERSION_CODE == KERNEL_VERSION(3,13,11) && UTS_UBUNTU_RELEASE_ABI < 24)
 struct pcpu_sw_netstats {
 	u64     rx_packets;
 	u64     rx_bytes;
@@ -88,6 +89,7 @@ struct pcpu_sw_netstats {
 	u64     tx_bytes;
 	struct u64_stats_sync   syncp;
 };
+#endif
 
 #define netdev_tstats(dev)	((struct pcpu_sw_netstats *)dev->ml_priv)
 #define netdev_assign_tstats(dev, e)	dev->ml_priv = (e);
-- 
2.1.4

Re: [PATCH] backport: allow compilation with Ubuntu's 3.13

[Johannes Berg]

On Tue, 2015-05-19 at 16:42 +0300, Emmanuel Grumbach wrote:

> +#if (LINUX_VERSION_CODE == KERNEL_VERSION(3,13,11) && UTS_UBUNTU_RELEASE_ABI < 24)

Now that I look at this again, I'm confused - shouldn't this whole thing
have a ! in front?

johannes

Re: [PATCH] backport: allow compilation with Ubuntu's 3.13

[Grumbach, Emmanuel]
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==

Re: [PATCH] backport: allow compilation with Ubuntu's 3.13

[Johannes Berg]

On Wed, 2015-05-20 at 08:31 +0000, Grumbach, Emmanuel wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-05-20 at 10:27 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-05-19 at 16:42 +0300, Emmanuel Grumbach wrote:
> > 
> > > +#if (LINUX_VERSION_CODE == KERNEL_VERSION(3,13,11) && UTS_UBUNTU_RELEASE_ABI < 24)
> > 
> > Now that I look at this again, I'm confused - shouldn't this whole thing
> > have a ! in front?
> > 
> 
> why?
> I need this definition only for Ubuntu releases that are below 24.
> Canonical ported that starting 24.
> What am I missing?

But every mainline kernel, say 3.10, also needs it. Also Ubuntu with
3.10, for example.

johannes

Re: [PATCH] backport: allow compilation with Ubuntu's 3.13

[Luca Coelho]

On Wed, 2015-05-20 at 08:31 +0000, Grumbach, Emmanuel wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-05-20 at 10:27 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-05-19 at 16:42 +0300, Emmanuel Grumbach wrote:
> > 
> > > +#if (LINUX_VERSION_CODE == KERNEL_VERSION(3,13,11) && UTS_UBUNTU_RELEASE_ABI < 24)
> > 
> > Now that I look at this again, I'm confused - shouldn't this whole thing
> > have a ! in front?
> > 
> 
> why?
> I need this definition only for Ubuntu releases that are below 24.
> Canonical ported that starting 24.
> What am I missing?

At least the code as is doesn't work for me on Ubuntu 12.04 with 3.10
kernel...

--
Luca

Re: [PATCH] backport: allow compilation with Ubuntu's 3.13

[Grumbach, Emmanuel]
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Re: [PATCH] backport: allow compilation with Ubuntu's 3.13

[Larry Finger]

On 05/20/2015 03:39 AM, Grumbach, Emmanuel wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-05-20 at 10:34 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
>> On Wed, 2015-05-20 at 08:31 +0000, Grumbach, Emmanuel wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2015-05-20 at 10:27 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 2015-05-19 at 16:42 +0300, Emmanuel Grumbach wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +#if (LINUX_VERSION_CODE == KERNEL_VERSION(3,13,11) && UTS_UBUNTU_RELEASE_ABI < 24)
>>>>
>>>> Now that I look at this again, I'm confused - shouldn't this whole thing
>>>> have a ! in front?
>>>>
>>>
>>> why?
>>> I need this definition only for Ubuntu releases that are below 24.
>>> Canonical ported that starting 24.
>>> What am I missing?
>>
>> But every mainline kernel, say 3.10, also needs it. Also Ubuntu with
>> 3.10, for example.
>>
>
> You are right obviously.

What happens if the user is not running a Ubuntu kernel and 
UTS_UBUNTU_RELEASE_ABI is undefined?

I am really pissed off about Ubuntu's backporting API changes so that testing 
LINUX_VERSION_CODE is no longer sufficient. In fact when someone complains the 
one of the out-of-kernel drivers that I maintain does not build with kernel X.Y, 
I check that version out in mainline, build the driver to make sure the problem 
is not mine, and then tell them to complain to their vendor. I no longer fix 
those problems. I think RHEL is also doing the same kind of thing - at least I 
did get one complaint about a build problem that seemed to be due to an API 
backport. Where do we stop?

Larry

Re: [PATCH] backport: allow compilation with Ubuntu's 3.13

[Grumbach, Emmanuel]
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==

Re: [PATCH] backport: allow compilation with Ubuntu's 3.13

[Larry Finger]

On 05/20/2015 11:42 AM, Grumbach, Emmanuel wrote:
>
> Good question... I don't know. OTOH, distros don't really support
> backport. You can't really blame them if they break backport, why should
> they care?
> I agree. It is annoying. We can try to convince them, but I don't think
> that saying "you are all wrong" is the right path. Maybe we should try
> to have them more involved in backport to fix it themselves?
> And explain to them how important it is to be able to run backport on
> top of all their shipped kernels?

Supporting backport would be a first step, but that won't help all of the rtl8* 
repos that I have at GitHub. Most of those do not have drivers in the kernel, 
thus the users are dependent on that kind of external repo; however, I do not 
have any desire to find out what macro needs to be tested so that these drivers 
will build on distros that I do not use.

I guess I should report a bug to whatever disto breaks my driver and request 
that they fix it. I already know how much that will help :)

Larry

Re: [PATCH] backport: allow compilation with Ubuntu's 3.13

[Grumbach, Emmanuel]
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Re: [PATCH] backport: allow compilation with Ubuntu's 3.13

[Johannes Berg]

On Wed, 2015-05-20 at 11:53 -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
> On 05/20/2015 11:42 AM, Grumbach, Emmanuel wrote:
> >
> > Good question... I don't know. OTOH, distros don't really support
> > backport. You can't really blame them if they break backport, why should
> > they care?
> > I agree. It is annoying. We can try to convince them, but I don't think
> > that saying "you are all wrong" is the right path. Maybe we should try
> > to have them more involved in backport to fix it themselves?
> > And explain to them how important it is to be able to run backport on
> > top of all their shipped kernels?
> 
> Supporting backport would be a first step, but that won't help all of the rtl8* 
> repos that I have at GitHub. Most of those do not have drivers in the kernel, 
> thus the users are dependent on that kind of external repo; however, I do not 
> have any desire to find out what macro needs to be tested so that these drivers 
> will build on distros that I do not use.

Maybe you could just use backports for those drivers?

johannes

Re: [PATCH] backport: allow compilation with Ubuntu's 3.13

[Hauke Mehrtens]

On 05/19/2015 03:42 PM, Emmanuel Grumbach wrote:
> Canonical backported:
> 
> Author: Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@mellanox.com>
> Date:   Mon Jan 20 13:59:19 2014 +0200
> 
>     net: Add GRO support for UDP encapsulating protocols
> 
> This is commit 2da204a8f67fbe25816cbce8cc8551f03d5b951a in their
> tree.
> Cope with that.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Emmanuel Grumbach <emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com>
> ---
> Touch compiled only. And I don't really know how the UTS thing goes :)
> ---
>  backport/backport-include/linux/netdevice.h | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/backport/backport-include/linux/netdevice.h b/backport/backport-include/linux/netdevice.h
> index bb3fefb..61ac95c 100644
> --- a/backport/backport-include/linux/netdevice.h
> +++ b/backport/backport-include/linux/netdevice.h
> @@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ static inline void dev_consume_skb_any(struct sk_buff *skb)
>  	dev_kfree_skb_any(skb);
>  }
>  
> +#if (LINUX_VERSION_CODE == KERNEL_VERSION(3,13,11) && UTS_UBUNTU_RELEASE_ABI < 24)
>  struct pcpu_sw_netstats {
>  	u64     rx_packets;
>  	u64     rx_bytes;
> @@ -88,6 +89,7 @@ struct pcpu_sw_netstats {
>  	u64     tx_bytes;
>  	struct u64_stats_sync   syncp;
>  };
> +#endif
>  
>  #define netdev_tstats(dev)	((struct pcpu_sw_netstats *)dev->ml_priv)
>  #define netdev_assign_tstats(dev, e)	dev->ml_priv = (e);
> 


Thank you for the patch, it was applied and pushed.

I changed it into this:
+#if (LINUX_VERSION_CODE != KERNEL_VERSION(3,13,11) ||
UTS_UBUNTU_RELEASE_ABI < 24)
...
#endif

Hauke

Re: [PATCH] backport: allow compilation with Ubuntu's 3.13

[Luca Coelho]

On Mon, 2015-05-25 at 23:52 +0200, Hauke Mehrtens wrote:
> On 05/19/2015 03:42 PM, Emmanuel Grumbach wrote:
> > Canonical backported:
> > 
> > Author: Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@mellanox.com>
> > Date:   Mon Jan 20 13:59:19 2014 +0200
> > 
> >     net: Add GRO support for UDP encapsulating protocols
> > 
> > This is commit 2da204a8f67fbe25816cbce8cc8551f03d5b951a in their
> > tree.
> > Cope with that.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Emmanuel Grumbach <emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com>
> > ---
> > Touch compiled only. And I don't really know how the UTS thing goes :)
> > ---
> >  backport/backport-include/linux/netdevice.h | 2 ++
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/backport/backport-include/linux/netdevice.h b/backport/backport-include/linux/netdevice.h
> > index bb3fefb..61ac95c 100644
> > --- a/backport/backport-include/linux/netdevice.h
> > +++ b/backport/backport-include/linux/netdevice.h
> > @@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ static inline void dev_consume_skb_any(struct sk_buff *skb)
> >  	dev_kfree_skb_any(skb);
> >  }
> >  
> > +#if (LINUX_VERSION_CODE == KERNEL_VERSION(3,13,11) && UTS_UBUNTU_RELEASE_ABI < 24)
> >  struct pcpu_sw_netstats {
> >  	u64     rx_packets;
> >  	u64     rx_bytes;
> > @@ -88,6 +89,7 @@ struct pcpu_sw_netstats {
> >  	u64     tx_bytes;
> >  	struct u64_stats_sync   syncp;
> >  };
> > +#endif
> >  
> >  #define netdev_tstats(dev)	((struct pcpu_sw_netstats *)dev->ml_priv)
> >  #define netdev_assign_tstats(dev, e)	dev->ml_priv = (e);
> > 
> 
> 
> Thank you for the patch, it was applied and pushed.
> 
> I changed it into this:
> +#if (LINUX_VERSION_CODE != KERNEL_VERSION(3,13,11) ||
> UTS_UBUNTU_RELEASE_ABI < 24)
> ...
> #endif

Isn't this still wrong? What if the kernel is >= 3,13,11? In that case,
the struct will be already defined... and if it's an upstream kernel
(i.e. UTS_UBUNTU_RELEASE_ABI is not defined) we will still try to
redefine this struct, no?

--
Luca.

Re: [PATCH] backport: allow compilation with Ubuntu's 3.13

[Coelho, Luciano]
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Re: [PATCH] backport: allow compilation with Ubuntu's 3.13

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net> wrote:
> I am really pissed off about Ubuntu's backporting API changes so that
> testing LINUX_VERSION_CODE is no longer sufficient. In fact when someone
> complains the one of the out-of-kernel drivers that I maintain does not
> build with kernel X.Y, I check that version out in mainline, build the
> driver to make sure the problem is not mine, and then tell them to complain
> to their vendor. I no longer fix those problems. I think RHEL is also doing
> the same kind of thing - at least I did get one complaint about a build
> problem that seemed to be due to an API backport. Where do we stop?

Distros have been doing backporting for years, and their solutions
differ a bit, the Linux backports projects provides an outlet to
generalize a bit of this work through a systematic approach that aims
towards automation as much as possible. Some distributions have
already found value to this and embrace backports somehow, some others
are considering how to integrate it. For those distributions that have
already embraced backports and that also provide their own ABI they
resort to ABI solutions as described in this thread and patch. As an
example Red Hat already has integrated into backports support to
address ABI differences and they do that themselves, we welcome this.
Other distros should follow suit if they need this as well, and
obviously their solution should not interfere with the general
kernels.

On the other hand based on experience with these issues we have also
embraced proactive practices over time to try to avoid conflicts with
such kernel ABIs, one example was to embrace the #idef foo strategy
which checks to see if a kernel has defined a "foo" API already
instead of #if code with LINUX_VERSION_CODE stuff in which we know an
upstream kernel defined it, as is typically done. This is a strategy
*new* developers can embrace to help with this problem but it means
new code should use these #define strategies somehow when introducing
APIs.

For a while now I have been suggesting that over time we will likely
run into concrete items for automation for backporting or just general
backporting which could implicate how we should do development
upstream. This is an example of one of those best practices that could
be widely embraced to help make backporter's life easier. If we want
to take this a step further, which I want to, we'd add a grammatical
strategy to help with automation but I don't think we're there yet to
formalize that precisely just yet.

 Luis

Re: [PATCH] backport: allow compilation with Ubuntu's 3.13

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@frijolero.org> wrote:
> This is a strategy
> *new* developers

Sorry I meant that developers can use for *new* upstream code.

 Luis