On 09/19/2017 08:26 AM, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > On Tue, 2017-09-19 at 07:27 -0400, John Ferlan wrote: >>> First of all, you're removing a number of checks >>> on unrelated symbols >>> that are still used in the code, and if any of those is not present >>> then we shouldn't compile the relevant bits at all. >> >> I checked - up through 4.8 "most" are available. At 4.8 the *ESWITCH* >> ones were added. Checking for a minimum version for a symbol is >> something we do in other code under the assumption that any symbol that >> is in a counted enum/list for a command or structure before it is >> available. Otherwise, we'd have more symbol and field checking all over >> the place. > > Okay, I see what you were aiminig for now, and I don't disagree > with it; however, the rationale was not explained clearly in the > original commit message. > OK - I did have it at one point, but the damn commit message got so long I just trimmed out that part... >>> Second, we're using >>> DEVLINK_CMD_ESWITCH_GET in the code, but as you >>> explain that version is only available in newer kernels. >>> >>> I think the approach need to be more nuanced: >>> >>> - use >>> DEVLINK_CMD_ESWITCH_GET or DEVLINK_CMD_ESWITCH_MODE_GET, >>> depending on which on is available, with the former one being the >>> preferred option; >> >> That's another option to what I posted a few moments ago to use: >> >> # ifndef... > > Sure, that would work too, and look a little bit better than > what I proposed. > So is this methodology preferred over what Jano posts? John -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
