On 3/10/25 14:40, Felix Huettner via dev wrote:
> RTPROT_OVN has been merged to the net-next tree of the kernel just now [1].
> Until it is available on all systems we need to forward declare it.
>
> As we are already on it we also add support for it in
> test-lib-route-table.
>
> [1]:
> https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net-next.git/commit/?id=6002850fdfe0b4343136670a9895b6ba4ee3285b
>
> Signed-off-by: Felix Huettner <[email protected]>
> ---
> tests/test-lib-route-table.c | 7 +++++++
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tests/test-lib-route-table.c b/tests/test-lib-route-table.c
> index 61d97e06f..2986e4247 100644
> --- a/tests/test-lib-route-table.c
> +++ b/tests/test-lib-route-table.c
> @@ -27,6 +27,12 @@
> #include "packets.h"
> #include "route-table.h"
>
> +/* These will be introduced in Linux 6.15, so they might be missing if we
> have
> + * old headers. */
Hmm. For some reason this comment is talking about multiple things, while
there is only one definition. It will also look a little awkward talking
about 6.15 as some future thing as soon as 6.15 is out. What do you think
about re-wording it into:
/* The following definition should be available in Linux 6.15 and might be
* missing if we have older headers. */
?
I can fold this in while applying, if you agree.
Best regards, Ilya Maximets.
> +#ifndef RTPROT_OVN
> +#define RTPROT_OVN 84
> +#endif
> +
> static char *
> rt_prot_name(unsigned char p)
> {
> @@ -39,6 +45,7 @@ rt_prot_name(unsigned char p)
> p == RTPROT_STATIC ? "RTPROT_STATIC" :
> p == RTPROT_RA ? "RTPROT_RA" :
> p == RTPROT_DHCP ? "RTPROT_DHCP" :
> + p == RTPROT_OVN ? "RTPROT_OVN" :
> p == RTPROT_BGP ? "RTPROT_BGP" :
> "UNKNOWN";
> }
>
> base-commit: a68887e1f1d72f1feedaaf3ae6ee536c27bfe751
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
