2015-07-10 13:44, Stephen Hemminger:
> On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 22:19:58 +0200
> Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>
> > 2015-07-10 10:29, Stephen Hemminger:
> > > On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 01:43:17 +0200
> > > Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > >
> > > > 2015-07-09 16:26, Stephen Hemminger:
> > > > > From: Stephen
On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 22:19:58 +0200
Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2015-07-10 10:29, Stephen Hemminger:
> > On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 01:43:17 +0200
> > Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >
> > > 2015-07-09 16:26, Stephen Hemminger:
> > > > From: Stephen Hemminger
> > > >
> > > > The build of DPDK may be done on a
On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 01:43:17 +0200
Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2015-07-09 16:26, Stephen Hemminger:
> > From: Stephen Hemminger
> >
> > The build of DPDK may be done on a system where Linux headers
> > in /usr/include (and therefore kernel version macro) are much
> > older than the target runtime
Hi Stephen,
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/compat_vfio.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,181 @@
Wouldn't this need a GPL license header?
Thanks,Anatoly
On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 10:13:41 +
"Burakov, Anatoly" wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/compat_vfio.h
> > @@ -0,0 +1,181 @@
>
> Wouldn't this need a GPL license header?
>
> Thanks,Anatoly
No. It is perfectly valid to create new headers with
2015-07-09 16:26, Stephen Hemminger:
> From: Stephen Hemminger
>
> The build of DPDK may be done on a system where Linux headers
> in /usr/include (and therefore kernel version macro) are much
> older than the target runtime system.
It seems strange wanting to build a feature not present in the
From: Stephen Hemminger
The build of DPDK may be done on a system where Linux headers
in /usr/include (and therefore kernel version macro) are much
older than the target runtime system.
In order to work around this, one solution is to put in simplified
kernel header (this
7 matches
Mail list logo