With gcc 3.4.2 I got following errors while compiling HVM pv drivers against xen unstable 15651. ################# /xen-3.0-hg-xen_unstable_pae-15651-20070727/unmodified_drivers/linux-2.6 /netfront/accel.c: In function `accelerator_remove_hooks'': xen-3.0-hg-xen_unstable_pae-15651-20070727/unmodified_drivers/linux-2.6/ netfront/accel.c:495: error: syntax error before "do" xen-3.0-hg-xen_unstable_pae-15651-20070727/unmodified_drivers/linux-2.6/ netfront/accel.c:495: error: syntax error before '')'' token ################### But on rhel5 (gcc 4.1.1), the build can pass without any error. Can anybody take a look at this issue? Thanks Yunfeng _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On 30/7/07 10:28, "Zhao, Yunfeng" <yunfeng.zhao@intel.com> wrote:> But on rhel5 (gcc 4.1.1), the build can pass without any error. > > Can anybody take a look at this issue?Why don''t you, since you are ideally placed with a simple repro scenario? -- Keir _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 17:28 +0800, Zhao, Yunfeng wrote:> With gcc 3.4.2 I got following errors while compiling HVM pv drivers > against xen unstable 15651. > ################# > /xen-3.0-hg-xen_unstable_pae-15651-20070727/unmodified_drivers/linux-2.6 > /netfront/accel.c: In function `accelerator_remove_hooks'': > xen-3.0-hg-xen_unstable_pae-15651-20070727/unmodified_drivers/linux-2.6/ > netfront/accel.c:495: error: syntax error before "do" > xen-3.0-hg-xen_unstable_pae-15651-20070727/unmodified_drivers/linux-2.6/ > netfront/accel.c:495: error: syntax error before '')'' token > ################### > But on rhel5 (gcc 4.1.1), the build can pass without any error.Curious. Can you post what code you have at that line. In my recent checkout it looks like this: 490: list_for_each_entry_safe(vif_state, tmp, 491: &accelerator->vif_states, 492: link) { 493: /* Make sure there are no data path operations going on */ 494: netif_poll_disable(vif_state->np->netdev); 495: netif_tx_lock_bh(vif_state->np->netdev); Which doesn''t seem to match the error you''re getting. No "do" for example. I''ll try and reproduce it, but haven''t seen this before, and the nearest gcc version I have easily to hand is 3.4.3 Kieran _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
At 10:58 30/07/2007, Kieran Mansley wrote:>On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 17:28 +0800, Zhao, Yunfeng wrote: > > With gcc 3.4.2 I got following errors while compiling HVM pv drivers > > against xen unstable 15651. > > ################# > > /xen-3.0-hg-xen_unstable_pae-15651-20070727/unmodified_drivers/linux-2.6 > > /netfront/accel.c: In function `accelerator_remove_hooks'': > > xen-3.0-hg-xen_unstable_pae-15651-20070727/unmodified_drivers/linux-2.6/ > > netfront/accel.c:495: error: syntax error before "do" > > xen-3.0-hg-xen_unstable_pae-15651-20070727/unmodified_drivers/linux-2.6/ > > netfront/accel.c:495: error: syntax error before '')'' token > > ################### > > But on rhel5 (gcc 4.1.1), the build can pass without any error. > >Curious. Can you post what code you have at that line. In my recent >checkout it looks like this: > >490: list_for_each_entry_safe(vif_state, tmp, >491: &accelerator->vif_states, >492: link) { >493: /* Make sure there are no data path operations going on */ >494: netif_poll_disable(vif_state->np->netdev); >495: netif_tx_lock_bh(vif_state->np->netdev);Unless one of those lines is a macro that uses the "do { ... } while(0)" trick, perhaps - how about looking at the preprocessor output for those lines? -- Mats>Which doesn''t seem to match the error you''re getting. No "do" for >example. > >I''ll try and reproduce it, but haven''t seen this before, and the nearest >gcc version I have easily to hand is 3.4.3 > >Kieran > > >_______________________________________________ >Xen-devel mailing list >Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com >http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> >490: list_for_each_entry_safe(vif_state, tmp, >491: &accelerator->vif_states, >492: link) { >493: /* Make sure there are no data path operations going on*/>494: netif_poll_disable(vif_state->np->netdev); >495: netif_tx_lock_bh(vif_state->np->netdev); > >Which doesn''t seem to match the error you''re getting. No "do" for >example. > >I''ll try and reproduce it, but haven''t seen this before, and thenearest>gcc version I have easily to hand is 3.4.3[Yunfeng] The code I have is the same as yours. netif_tx_lock_bh is a inline function which contains a macro of LOCK_HB #define __LOCK(lock) \ do { preempt_disable(); __acquire(lock); (void)(lock); } while (0) #define __LOCK_BH(lock) \ do { local_bh_disable(); __LOCK(lock); } while (0)> >Kieran_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 20:43 +0800, Zhao, Yunfeng wrote:> > > > >490: list_for_each_entry_safe(vif_state, tmp, > >491: &accelerator->vif_states, > >492: link) { > >493: /* Make sure there are no data path operations going on > */ > >494: netif_poll_disable(vif_state->np->netdev); > >495: netif_tx_lock_bh(vif_state->np->netdev); > > > >Which doesn''t seem to match the error you''re getting. No "do" for > >example. > > > >I''ll try and reproduce it, but haven''t seen this before, and the > nearest > >gcc version I have easily to hand is 3.4.3 > [Yunfeng] The code I have is the same as yours. > netif_tx_lock_bh is a inline function which contains a macro of LOCK_HB > #define __LOCK(lock) \ > do { preempt_disable(); __acquire(lock); (void)(lock); } while (0) > > #define __LOCK_BH(lock) \ > do { local_bh_disable(); __LOCK(lock); } while (0)OK. I still can''t see what the problem should be, other than something wrong with gcc 3.4.2. I was able to compile netfront fine with gcc 3.4.3 by the way. Does gcc 3.4.2 cope OK with the rest of the kernel? There are many other uses of netif_tx_lock_bh() and so it would be interesting to know if it''s something about that function, or something about the way it''s used in this instance that triggers the error. Any other information you can give that would help reproduce this would be of great assistance. E.g. kernel source version, exactly which distribution, exactly which gcc (e.g. is it a version that might have been modified by a linux vendor), etc. Kieran _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>OK. I still can''t see what the problem should be, other than something >wrong with gcc 3.4.2. I was able to compile netfront fine with gcc >3.4.3 by the way. Does gcc 3.4.2 cope OK with the rest of the kernel? >There are many other uses of netif_tx_lock_bh() and so it would be >interesting to know if it''s something about that function, or something >about the way it''s used in this instance that triggers the error. > >Any other information you can give that would help reproduce this would >be of great assistance. E.g. kernel source version, exactly which >distribution, exactly which gcc (e.g. is it a version that might have >been modified by a linux vendor), etc.[Yunfeng] The build was tried on a FC3 root fs with using the gcc of fc3, and tried to build the driver with 2.6.16 and 2.6.18 kernels, both failed.> >Kieran_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 21:49 +0800, Zhao, Yunfeng wrote:> >Does gcc 3.4.2 cope OK with the rest of the kernel? > >There are many other uses of netif_tx_lock_bh() and so it would be > >interesting to know if it''s something about that function, or something > >about the way it''s used in this instance that triggers the error.Any thoughts on that one?> >Any other information you can give that would help reproduce this would > >be of great assistance. E.g. kernel source version, exactly which > >distribution, exactly which gcc (e.g. is it a version that might have > >been modified by a linux vendor), etc. > [Yunfeng] The build was tried on a FC3 root fs with using the gcc of > fc3,Which one? :) There were probably multiple versions. E.g. the fc3 box I have access to is using: [~]$ gcc --version gcc (GCC) 3.4.3 20050227 (Red Hat 3.4.3-22.fc3) I''ve had a look in the Changelog for both GCC and the redhat RPM from around that time (between 3.4.2-1.fc3 and 3.4.3-22.fc3) and can''t see anything obvious that would have fixed this, but sometimes these things aren''t obvious. If you can try the version of gcc that works for me, that would be useful for ruling out it being something else that I''m doing that makes it work: http://rpmfind.net/linux/RPM/fedora/updates/3/i386/gcc-3.4.3-22.fc3.i386.html Kieran _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 21:49 +0800, Zhao, Yunfeng wrote: >> >Does gcc 3.4.2 cope OK with the rest of the kernel? >> >There are many other uses of netif_tx_lock_bh() and so it would be >> >interesting to know if it''s something about that function, orsomething>> >about the way it''s used in this instance that triggers the error. > >Any thoughts on that one?[Yunfeng] I will try this tomorrow. Current I am not in office, and I have the env to do this.> >> >Any other information you can give that would help reproduce thiswould>> >be of great assistance. E.g. kernel source version, exactly which >> >distribution, exactly which gcc (e.g. is it a version that mighthave>> >been modified by a linux vendor), etc. >> [Yunfeng] The build was tried on a FC3 root fs with using the gcc of >> fc3, > >Which one? :) There were probably multiple versions. E.g. the fc3 box >I have access to is using: >[~]$ gcc --version >gcc (GCC) 3.4.3 20050227 (Red Hat 3.4.3-22.fc3) > >I''ve had a look in the Changelog for both GCC and the redhat RPM from >around that time (between 3.4.2-1.fc3 and 3.4.3-22.fc3) and can''t see >anything obvious that would have fixed this, but sometimes these things >aren''t obvious. > >If you can try the version of gcc that works for me, that would be >useful for ruling out it being something else that I''m doing that makes >it work: > >http://rpmfind.net/linux/RPM/fedora/updates/3/i386/gcc-3.4.3-22.fc3.i386.ht>ml[Yunfeng] I will try this tomorrow.> >Kieran_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
What kernel have you tried? Have you tried 2.6.16? Thanks Yunfeng>-----Original Message----- >From: Kieran Mansley [mailto:kmansley@solarflare.com] >Sent: 2007年7月30日 22:05 >To: Zhao, Yunfeng >Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com >Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] compile error of HVM pv drivers > >On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 21:49 +0800, Zhao, Yunfeng wrote: >> >Does gcc 3.4.2 cope OK with the rest of the kernel? >> >There are many other uses of netif_tx_lock_bh() and so it would be >> >interesting to know if it''s something about that function, or something >> >about the way it''s used in this instance that triggers the error. > >Any thoughts on that one? > >> >Any other information you can give that would help reproduce this would >> >be of great assistance. E.g. kernel source version, exactly which >> >distribution, exactly which gcc (e.g. is it a version that might have >> >been modified by a linux vendor), etc. >> [Yunfeng] The build was tried on a FC3 root fs with using the gcc of >> fc3, > >Which one? :) There were probably multiple versions. E.g. the fc3 box >I have access to is using: >[~]$ gcc --version >gcc (GCC) 3.4.3 20050227 (Red Hat 3.4.3-22.fc3) > >I''ve had a look in the Changelog for both GCC and the redhat RPM from >around that time (between 3.4.2-1.fc3 and 3.4.3-22.fc3) and can''t see >anything obvious that would have fixed this, but sometimes these things >aren''t obvious. > >If you can try the version of gcc that works for me, that would be >useful for ruling out it being something else that I''m doing that makes >it work: > >http://rpmfind.net/linux/RPM/fedora/updates/3/i386/gcc-3.4.3-22.fc3.i386.ht >ml > >Kieran_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 22:22 +0800, Zhao, Yunfeng wrote:> > What kernel have you tried? Have you tried 2.6.16? > >2.6.18 - you mentioned that it failed for you on both 2.6.16 and 2.6.18. Kieran _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>-----Original Message----- >From: Kieran Mansley [mailto:kmansley@solarflare.com] >Sent: 2007年7月30日 22:24 >To: Zhao, Yunfeng >Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com >Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] compile error of HVM pv drivers > >On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 22:22 +0800, Zhao, Yunfeng wrote: >> >> What kernel have you tried? Have you tried 2.6.16? >> >> > >2.6.18 - you mentioned that it failed for you on both 2.6.16 and 2.6.18.[Yunfeng] On FC3 I only tried 2.6.16, it failed. Sorry for the confusion!> >Kieran_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Hi, Kieran I just checked 2.6.16 kernel source. netif_tx_lock_bh is not in the code of 2.6.16, but it is in 2.6.18 thanks Yunfeng>-----Original Message----- >From: Kieran Mansley [mailto:kmansley@solarflare.com] >Sent: 2007年7月30日 22:24 >To: Zhao, Yunfeng >Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com >Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] compile error of HVM pv drivers > >On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 22:22 +0800, Zhao, Yunfeng wrote: >> >> What kernel have you tried? Have you tried 2.6.16? >> >> > >2.6.18 - you mentioned that it failed for you on both 2.6.16 and 2.6.18. > >Kieran_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On <2.6.18 the definition for netif_tx_lock_bh() should be picked up from unmodified_drivers/linux-2.6/compat-include/xen/platform-compat.h -- Keir On 30/7/07 15:39, "Zhao, Yunfeng" <yunfeng.zhao@intel.com> wrote:> Hi, Kieran > I just checked 2.6.16 kernel source. > netif_tx_lock_bh is not in the code of 2.6.16, but it is in 2.6.18 > > thanks > Yunfeng >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Kieran Mansley [mailto:kmansley@solarflare.com] >> Sent: 2007年7月30日 22:24 >> To: Zhao, Yunfeng >> Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com >> Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] compile error of HVM pv drivers >> >> On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 22:22 +0800, Zhao, Yunfeng wrote: >>> >>> What kernel have you tried? Have you tried 2.6.16? >>> >>> >> >> 2.6.18 - you mentioned that it failed for you on both 2.6.16 and 2.6.18. >> >> Kieran > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 22:39 +0800, Zhao, Yunfeng wrote:> Hi, Kieran > I just checked 2.6.16 kernel source. > netif_tx_lock_bh is not in the code of 2.6.16, but it is in 2.6.18In that case replacing the calls (there are two in that file) to netif_tx_lock_bh() with: spin_lock_bh(&vif_state->np->netdev->xmit_lock); And similarly the calls to netif_tx_unlock_bh() with spin_unlock_bh(), may solve your problem. If this works for you I''ll make a patch that uses the kernel version to decide which is appropriate. Kieran _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On 30/7/07 15:47, "Kieran Mansley" <kmansley@solarflare.com> wrote:> In that case replacing the calls (there are two in that file) to > netif_tx_lock_bh() with: > > spin_lock_bh(&vif_state->np->netdev->xmit_lock); > > And similarly the calls to netif_tx_unlock_bh() with spin_unlock_bh(), > may solve your problem. > > If this works for you I''ll make a patch that uses the kernel version to > decide which is appropriate.Compat issues when building PV-on-HVM drivers are patched up out-of-band in the special unmodified_drivers/linux-2.6/compat-include/xen/platform-compat.h header file. -- Keir _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 15:47 +0100, Kieran Mansley wrote:> On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 22:39 +0800, Zhao, Yunfeng wrote: > > Hi, Kieran > > I just checked 2.6.16 kernel source. > > netif_tx_lock_bh is not in the code of 2.6.16, but it is in 2.6.18 > > In that case replacing the calls (there are two in that file) to > netif_tx_lock_bh() with: > > spin_lock_bh(&vif_state->np->netdev->xmit_lock); > > And similarly the calls to netif_tx_unlock_bh() with spin_unlock_bh(), > may solve your problem.In light of Keir''s reply pointing out the compat definition of netif_tx_lock_bh() this is clearly not going to help. Sorry. I thought it was an odd way of the compiler to express that error. Kieran _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
The problem may be from the new changes in unmodified_drivers/linux-2.6/compat-include/xen/platform-compat.h the following two lines: #define netif_tx_lock_bh(dev) (spin_lock_bh(&(dev)->xmit_lock)) #define netif_tx_unlock_bh(dev) (spin_unlock_bh(&(dev)->xmit_lock)) should be #define netif_tx_lock_bh(dev) (spin_lock_bh(&dev->xmit_lock)) #define netif_tx_unlock_bh(dev) (spin_unlock_bh(&dev->xmit_lock)) "()" is useless for dev. Thanks Yunfeng>-----Original Message----- >From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir@xensource.com] >Sent: 2007年7月30日 22:52 >To: Kieran Mansley; Zhao, Yunfeng >Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com >Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] compile error of HVM pv drivers > >On 30/7/07 15:47, "Kieran Mansley" <kmansley@solarflare.com> wrote: > >> In that case replacing the calls (there are two in that file) to >> netif_tx_lock_bh() with: >> >> spin_lock_bh(&vif_state->np->netdev->xmit_lock); >> >> And similarly the calls to netif_tx_unlock_bh() with spin_unlock_bh(), >> may solve your problem. >> >> If this works for you I''ll make a patch that uses the kernel version to >> decide which is appropriate. > >Compat issues when building PV-on-HVM drivers are patched up out-of-band in >the special >unmodified_drivers/linux-2.6/compat-include/xen/platform-compat.h >header file. > > -- Keir_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
I think you''ll find that doesn''t fix the problem. The () is there for a reason. K. On 30/7/07 16:02, "Zhao, Yunfeng" <yunfeng.zhao@intel.com> wrote:> The problem may be from the new changes in > unmodified_drivers/linux-2.6/compat-include/xen/platform-compat.h > > the following two lines: > #define netif_tx_lock_bh(dev) (spin_lock_bh(&(dev)->xmit_lock)) > #define netif_tx_unlock_bh(dev) (spin_unlock_bh(&(dev)->xmit_lock)) > should be > #define netif_tx_lock_bh(dev) (spin_lock_bh(&dev->xmit_lock)) > #define netif_tx_unlock_bh(dev) (spin_unlock_bh(&dev->xmit_lock)) > "()" is useless for dev. > > Thanks > Yunfeng > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir@xensource.com] >> Sent: 2007年7月30日 22:52 >> To: Kieran Mansley; Zhao, Yunfeng >> Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com >> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] compile error of HVM pv drivers >> >> On 30/7/07 15:47, "Kieran Mansley" <kmansley@solarflare.com> wrote: >> >>> In that case replacing the calls (there are two in that file) to >>> netif_tx_lock_bh() with: >>> >>> spin_lock_bh(&vif_state->np->netdev->xmit_lock); >>> >>> And similarly the calls to netif_tx_unlock_bh() with spin_unlock_bh(), >>> may solve your problem. >>> >>> If this works for you I''ll make a patch that uses the kernel version to >>> decide which is appropriate. >> >> Compat issues when building PV-on-HVM drivers are patched up out-of-band in >> the special >> unmodified_drivers/linux-2.6/compat-include/xen/platform-compat.h >> header file. >> >> -- Keir > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
"netfront/accel.c" needs include platform-compat.h #ifdef HAVE_XEN_PLATFORM_COMPAT_H #include <xen/platform-compat.h> #endif>-----Original Message----- >From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir@xensource.com] >Sent: 2007年7月30日 23:05 >To: Zhao, Yunfeng; Kieran Mansley >Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com >Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] compile error of HVM pv drivers > >I think you''ll find that doesn''t fix the problem. The () is there for a >reason. > > K. > >On 30/7/07 16:02, "Zhao, Yunfeng" <yunfeng.zhao@intel.com> wrote: > >> The problem may be from the new changes in >> unmodified_drivers/linux-2.6/compat-include/xen/platform-compat.h >> >> the following two lines: >> #define netif_tx_lock_bh(dev) (spin_lock_bh(&(dev)->xmit_lock)) >> #define netif_tx_unlock_bh(dev) (spin_unlock_bh(&(dev)->xmit_lock)) >> should be >> #define netif_tx_lock_bh(dev) (spin_lock_bh(&dev->xmit_lock)) >> #define netif_tx_unlock_bh(dev) (spin_unlock_bh(&dev->xmit_lock)) >> "()" is useless for dev. >> >> Thanks >> Yunfeng >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir@xensource.com] >>> Sent: 2007年7月30日 22:52 >>> To: Kieran Mansley; Zhao, Yunfeng >>> Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com >>> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] compile error of HVM pv drivers >>> >>> On 30/7/07 15:47, "Kieran Mansley" <kmansley@solarflare.com> wrote: >>> >>>> In that case replacing the calls (there are two in that file) to >>>> netif_tx_lock_bh() with: >>>> >>>> spin_lock_bh(&vif_state->np->netdev->xmit_lock); >>>> >>>> And similarly the calls to netif_tx_unlock_bh() with spin_unlock_bh(), >>>> may solve your problem. >>>> >>>> If this works for you I''ll make a patch that uses the kernel version to >>>> decide which is appropriate. >>> >>> Compat issues when building PV-on-HVM drivers are patched up out-of-band in >>> the special >>> unmodified_drivers/linux-2.6/compat-include/xen/platform-compat.h >>> header file. >>> >>> -- Keir >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Xen-devel mailing list >> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com >> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 23:38 +0800, Zhao, Yunfeng wrote:> "netfront/accel.c" needs include platform-compat.h > #ifdef HAVE_XEN_PLATFORM_COMPAT_H > #include <xen/platform-compat.h> > #endifThat should come from netfront.h, same as for netfront.c Kieran _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Yeah, I have checked the PV-on-HVM build against 2.6.17, so it''s not going to be anything super-obvious like that. -- Keir On 30/7/07 16:42, "Kieran Mansley" <kmansley@solarflare.com> wrote:> On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 23:38 +0800, Zhao, Yunfeng wrote: >> "netfront/accel.c" needs include platform-compat.h >> #ifdef HAVE_XEN_PLATFORM_COMPAT_H >> #include <xen/platform-compat.h> >> #endif > > That should come from netfront.h, same as for netfront.c > > Kieran > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel