Linux kernel 4.0 support for e1000e cards

[neeraj9]

I have recently upgraded to Linux kernel 4.0 and PF_RING no longer works for me. Since, I have intel e1000e based ethernet controller so I have made a private patch for the same.
Do let me know if you are planning to launch a separate branch for kernel 4.0 and I can contribute my e1000e patch there.

[cardigliano]

Hi
we do not have 4.0 systems yet in our lab, please push your patch to the dev branch and we will review it.

Thank you
Alfredo

On 06 May 2015, at 07:43, Neeraj notifications@github.com wrote:

I have recently upgraded to Linux kernel 4.0 and PF_RING no longer works for me. Since, I have intel e1000e based ethernet controller so I have made a private patch for the same.
Do let me know if you are planning to launch a separate branch for kernel 4.0 and I can contribute my e1000e patch there.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub #2.

[neeraj9]

My patch do not have backward compatibility and blindly makes changes for the linux kernel 4.0. Do let me know if you still want the patch on your dev branch.

[cardigliano]

Any chance to put #if macro based on kernel version?

Alfredo

On 07 May 2015, at 08:13, Neeraj notifications@github.com wrote:

My patch do not have backward compatibility and blindly makes changes for the linux kernel 4.0. Do let me know if you still want the patch on your dev branch.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub #2 (comment).

[neeraj9]

I can do that, though not a big fan of conditional compilation in this case. How about maintaining different branch for newer kernels? Don't you think that'll be better than polluting the code to support future kernel versions?

[cardigliano]

In that case we have to maintain N branches, one per kernel version, too time consuming, we prefer to use #ifdef.

Alfredo

On 07 May 2015, at 09:50, Neeraj notifications@github.com wrote:

I can do that, though not a big fan of conditional compilers. How about maintaining different branch for newer kernels? Don't you think that'll be better than polluting the code to support future kernel versions?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub #2 (comment).

[neeraj9]

Yes, that would be one branch per major kernel release. Anyway, since you want to maintain via conditional compilation so I'll rework the patch appropriately and post something this week.

[cardigliano]

Thank you, we will appreciate that

On 07 May 2015, at 10:13, Neeraj notifications@github.com wrote:

Yes, that would be one branch per major kernel release. Anyway, since you want to maintain via conditional compilation so I'll rework the patch appropriately and post something this week.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub #2 (comment).

[lmangani]

@neeraj9 are you still planning for post your contribution or shall this issue be closed for now?

[neeraj9]

I just didnt gotten around to do conditional compilation, additionally my system crashed in the mean time so I had to rework lately and didnt test it well enough. I'll try to spend some time this week, so you can keep this issue open for another more week.

[lmangani]

Thanks for the update @neeraj9 we will keep this open

[neeraj9]

#40 should close #2

[cardigliano]

Please check if e1000e-3.2.4.2-zc is working fine or we have to patch it

[neeraj9]

Did you find an issue with the patch?

[cardigliano]

Nope, but since we will release this new version, it is worth check if it also solves this issue.

[neeraj9]

I tested with linux kernel 4.0.3-1 and not 3.x or older kernel. Having said that I invested a good amount of time while trying to maintain backward compatibility.

[cardigliano]

Yes I know, thank you, we really appreciate that. What I asked was if you tested e1000e-3.2.4.2-zc on kernel 4.0.3-1.

[neeraj9]

Yes. I testing the patch on my kernel which is 4.0.3-1