Rakesh Ranjan wrote:
> Mike Christie wrote:
>> Rakesh Ranjan wrote:
>>> Rakesh Ranjan wrote:
>>>> Mike Christie wrote:
>>>>> On 09/01/2009 09:53 AM, Mike Christie wrote:
>>>>>> On 09/01/2009 03:58 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>>>>>>> Mike Christie wrote:
>>>>>>>> Or, I am ccing you because some time ago Erez was working on 
>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>> for older RHEL and SLES kernels for OFED. It looks like the patch
>>>>>>>> below would not be useful to you because iser is supported in those
>>>>>>>> kernels, but did you guys all need RHEL 4 and maybe SLES 9 
>>>>>>>> support too?
>>>>>>> Hi Mike, I'm used to work with patches which have a change log 
>>>>>>> and are
>>>>>>> signed, where this patch lacks both, so I can't really understand 
>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>> it is about, sorry.
>>>>>> A signature is not going to help you understand that patch will 
>>>>>> it? :)
>>>>>> I do not think a changelog will help either since it is the first
>>>>>> version of a RFC patch.
>>>>>>   From the subject of the mail and the body it looks like Rakesh is
>>>>>> trying to port libiscsi to older distro kernels (RHEL 5 and SLES 10
>>>>>> based) so he can support cxgb3i on them.
>>>>>> I am just asking you guys if you also need RHEL 4 and SLES 9 support.
>>>>> You guys meaning, do you need iser and does Rakesh need cxgb3i?
>>>> Hi Mike,
>>>> Yes we do want to support cxgb3i on RHEL4/SLES9. I am sending the 
>>>> modified patch against current james tree's libiscsi part. This 
>>>> patch can replace existing 2.6.14-23_compat.patch.
>>> Hi Mike,
>>> Here is updated patch that fixes some MACROS to fix compilation issue 
>>> on RHEL5.0 and SLES10.2
>> Was the patch in this mail the final version?
>> What was this for:
>> +#if !(defined RHELC1) && !(defined SLEC1)
>>         struct delayed_work recovery_work;
>> +#else
>> +       struct work_struct recovery_work;
>> +#endif
>> And what was the reason for the ifdefs related to this for:
>> +#if !(defined RHELC1) && !(defined SLEC1) \
>> +       && (LINUX_VERSION_CODE >= KERNEL_VERSION(2,6,19))
>>         task->have_checked_conn = false;
>>         task->last_timeout = jiffies;
>>         task->last_xfer = jiffies;
>> +#endif
> Hi Mike,
> These checks I have used to preserve the original 2.6.14-23 needed 
> contents. Since we don't want to have separate for each different OS 
> release, so I just put above part with these guards.

Do you need to mess with the delayed_work though? In open_iscsi_compat.h 
we have compat code for this:

+struct delayed_work {
+       struct work_struct work;

and I thought this was working for RHEL kernels as well as kernel.org ones.

My question for the second chunk was more why do you need to ifdef them 
at all? Those task fields will always be there won't they? Is it 
something that code is interacting with that is missing?

Sorry for the late reply again.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"open-iscsi" group.
To post to this group, send email to open-iscsi@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/open-iscsi

Reply via email to