Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] examples/bpf: fix compilation issue

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

31/07/2019 09:26, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net]
> > 30/07/2019 12:19, Konstantin Ananyev:
> > > Example BPF programs t1.c, t2.c, t3.c in folder examples/bpf are
> > > failing to compile with latest dpdk.org master.
> > > The reason is changes in some core DPDK header files, that causes
> > > now inclusion of x86 specific headers.
> > > To overcome the issue, minimize inclusion of DPDK header files
> > > into BPF source code.
> > >
> > > Bugzilla ID: 321
> > >
> > > Fixes: 9dfc06c26a8b ("test/bpf: add samples")
> > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> > >
> > > Reported-by: Michel Machado <michel@digirati.com.br>
> > > Suggested-by: Michel Machado <michel@digirati.com.br>
> > > Signed-off-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >  examples/bpf/mbuf.h | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > >  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > I think that's really a bad idea to have this file.
> > The BPF applications are supposed to update their own copy of mbuf?
> 
> Right now, yes (same as KNI).
> 
> > Please could you try to include rte_mbuf.h
> > instead of duplicating the mbuf layout?
> 
> I don't think it is possible without some rework on rte_mbuf.h itself.
> I thought about that, but for that we'll probably need to put just 
> struct rte_mbuf definition into a separate  file (rte_mbuf_core.h or so)	
> and might be some related definitions into rte_common.h or so.
> Then re_mbuf.h will include rte_mbuf_core.h while bpf (and might be KNI?)
> can include just rte_mbuf_core.h without any extra arch specific headers.
> Another alternative probably to define bpf as a separate arch
> (though don't know how big effort it will be).
> I planned to try something like that, but then totally forgot.
> And now it is too late, we are at RC4 already . 

Applied as workaround for 19.08.

Please try to remove this file for 19.11.