From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51D77A00E6 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 12:32:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE2511BE20; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 12:32:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E65A1BE1E for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 12:32:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDF1E4A7; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 06:32:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 06 Aug 2019 06:32:37 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=qY/epwi72TzlkkKd0b3/A6Apkv4i/5A5KbkeicMujo4=; b=QHYT9E3VzNJ4 +hC7pLziRVaLyLUF9H19ot/q0KDCoqLKZ386HNmlswwUuxVOlcekGJZRNAaWPLib syVWc5B6DtK7kGG2oPTtKUt97oF1RKoF6Mrpb2JHOG2mLmV/tBj1Rrskgg9LkCKO CbsbxOs0dInupeF1pu3y/iH/OrkSQto= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=qY/epwi72TzlkkKd0b3/A6Apkv4i/5A5KbkeicMuj o4=; b=iHyGrIzKhyjKo+5ynBPHcqFjdqKEIXmkdxtDJbjGdewwqzhdqSneHUmlt mmJqd8I6hDVbwIdh5a0g/IfYxr7pkvyEZ5xLsPM3VCQSVqW4Y0XMzvDFmYYwkQVP Gt1QwmvmLofUsFeYB01Pu/Q7qD9YLOPL3N1/6nZm9n7G8zqBXMQ1wtGGUIKRK9nV cGp/7P92Gd3Cw/tT7PRULjyC/aXaSeSXyZNfKDufmqAWo9T0qQYhkBJYo1pSSkIU 9kGBoCBLRTUwCrJc/dQ/BlJWp+flEQBaY1vgOui7SL+DyuvisOixFeHLlKHZKuJ7 IKB/3BLgRbJFvoz12DcZXoYipyfZQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduvddruddutddgvdelucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecuff homhgrihhnpeguphgukhdrohhrghenucfkphepleefrdeirddugeelrdduudegnecurfgr rhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtnecuve hluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (114.149.6.93.rev.sfr.net [93.6.149.114]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id C8B0680060; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 06:32:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "olivier.matz@6wind.com" , "Varghese, Vipin" Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2019 12:32:33 +0200 Message-ID: <12432374.WndGx6MAUd@xps> In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772580168A5FDA7@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <20190730101927.1665-1-konstantin.ananyev@intel.com> <10104652.MOWmfaWtsW@xps> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772580168A5FDA7@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] examples/bpf: fix compilation issue X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 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 > > > Suggested-by: Michel Machado > > > Signed-off-by: Konstantin Ananyev > > > --- > > > 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.