Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/2] drivers/net: remove explicit include of legacy filtering

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

26/03/2021 16:37, Ferruh Yigit:
> On 3/25/2021 10:20 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 25/03/2021 11:00, Ferruh Yigit:
> >> On 3/25/2021 5:53 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
> >>> On 3/24/21 11:00 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >>>> 24/03/2021 19:08, Ferruh Yigit:
> >>>>> On 3/21/2021 9:00 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >>>>>> The header file rte_eth_ctrl.h should not be needed because
> >>>>>> this legacy filtering API is completely replaced with the rte_flow API.
> >>>>>> However some definitions from this file are still used by some drivers,
> >>>>>> but such usage is already covered by an implicit include via rte_ethdev.h.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> >>>>>> Acked-by: Rosen Xu <rosen.xu@intel.com>
> >>>>>> Acked-by: Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>     drivers/net/dpaa2/dpaa2_ptp.c       | 1 -
> >>>>>>     drivers/net/iavf/iavf_hash.c        | 1 -
> >>>>>>     drivers/net/ice/ice_acl_filter.c    | 1 -
> >>>>>>     drivers/net/ice/ice_hash.c          | 1 -
> >>>>>>     drivers/net/ice/ice_switch_filter.c | 1 -
> >>>>>>     drivers/net/igc/igc_filter.h        | 1 -
> >>>>>>     drivers/net/ipn3ke/ipn3ke_flow.c    | 1 -
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Although this will work, if the above drives are using the defines from the
> >>>>> header file, isn't it better to include it explicitly?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What is the benefit of including the header implicitly?
> >>>>
> >>>> The benefit is to progressively remove rte_eth_ctrl.h.
> >>>> I want it to disappear.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> +1
> >>>
> >>
> >> This is just hiding its usage, the patch is not making it less used as a step
> >> forward to remove it.
> > 
> > Yes you're right. The only step forward is esthetic:
> > hiding something which should be removed.
> > And maybe some of these files don't need the include at all.
> > 
> >> But anyway I guess it doesn't worth spending more time to discuss it ...
> > 
> > Feel free to reject if you feel it is not a good step.
> > 
> 
> What do you think doing exact opposite,
> 
> remove "#include <rte_eth_ctrl.h>" from 'rte_ethdev.h',
> and include 'rte_eth_ctrl.h' explicitly where ever it is required,
> 
> this can make more clear what components use the 'rte_eth_ctrl.h' and why, which 
> may help clearing them to remove the header. Plus it highlights if a new PMD 
> wants to use the header, we can catch it easier.
> 
> When I tried above approach, it highlighted that not only drivers, libraries 
> also using this header, 'librte_ehtdev' & 'librte_flow_classify'.
> And for 'ethdev', the structs defined in the 'rte_eth_ctrl.h' are part of public 
> structs, so it is hard to remove them.
> Some PMD specific APIs also needs 'rte_eth_ctrl.h' header, but that is hidden 
> because of the implicit include, but again some structs in the 'rte_eth_ctrl.h' 
> are part of public APIs (although they are experimental).
> 
> Also, it turned out that same required headers in the drivers are hidden because 
> of this implicit include in 'rte_ethdev.h', I will send a fix for it soon.

OK thanks