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 C2538A0559; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 20:07:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 123771C06A; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 20:07:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 177E71C05C for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 20:07:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098404.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 02GJ1pNm022708 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 15:07:54 -0400 Received: from ppma04wdc.us.ibm.com (1a.90.2fa9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.47.144.26]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2yrubn5a9c-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 15:07:53 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma04wdc.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma04wdc.us.ibm.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id 02GJ6no1000523 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 19:07:52 GMT Received: from b03cxnp08028.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03cxnp08028.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.20]) by ppma04wdc.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 2yrpw6a94e-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 19:07:52 +0000 Received: from b03ledav006.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03ledav006.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.237]) by b03cxnp08028.gho.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 02GJ7pSZ60490136 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 16 Mar 2020 19:07:51 GMT Received: from b03ledav006.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ED69C605A; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 19:07:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b03ledav006.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D42BC6059; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 19:07:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from Davids-MBP.randomparity.org (unknown [9.211.144.249]) by b03ledav006.gho.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 19:07:50 +0000 (GMT) To: dev@dpdk.org, David Wilder References: <20200316112951.35428-1-bruce.richardson@intel.com> From: David Christensen Message-ID: <7bb3246f-2331-0cd0-d589-19324787fb16@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 12:07:49 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.138, 18.0.645 definitions=2020-03-16_08:2020-03-12, 2020-03-16 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 clxscore=1015 impostorscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=509 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2003020000 definitions=main-2003160080 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] pci: fix unneeded includes in public header file 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" On 3/16/20 10:49 AM, David Christensen wrote: > >> The rte_pci.h file includes more header files than are actually needed, >> which means that all users of it also include those headers. This patch >> removes the unneeded headers - adding them elsewhere where other >> components >> were requiring them but not including them directly. >> >> Fixes: c752998b5e2e ("pci: introduce library and driver") >> Cc: gaetan.rivet@6wind.com >> Cc: stable@dpdk.org >> >> Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson > > Patch is generating build errors with meson on my POWER system, though I > don't see how they're POWER specific: There's a pending patch to enable Travis for POWER systems: http://patches.dpdk.org/patch/65986/ Any reason it hasn't been accepted yet? Looks like it would have caught this problem. Dave