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 BB8A6A00C5; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 11:04:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D38B1C2F5; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 11:04:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com [207.211.31.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BCDF1C2F0 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 11:04:42 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1588237481; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=/Qt1nT6IKCloEYGt+JTqccJbDx/NC9jTURNmIX/nI4Q=; b=HtTUx+wMF0tRMvdkVgeeLppfSkT0yKxkaXm2bmbOnqtEoQ0F4fHlTGzjzIwRRonACzscUZ 661JntVBgQY1qHHdDNDF9NfpnGsCwXLaHFwuUp//DPGv5lGCxUaFq/vPvAK8X8SoS3aXg0 h2NjFgcBY3/lFWybueJt3Lz79PXgBms= Received: from mail-vk1-f197.google.com (mail-vk1-f197.google.com [209.85.221.197]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-373-JRGzMnkuMxKnrDmCCDKEsA-1; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 05:04:38 -0400 X-MC-Unique: JRGzMnkuMxKnrDmCCDKEsA-1 Received: by mail-vk1-f197.google.com with SMTP id b137so2793679vke.18 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 02:04:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3UZnnwNy/tkEMbw3R4k7MFvndn068Y6l7tlu0Gfn3nQ=; b=RGiJ1i411aryUig2bv2jO2SlrEPOddpK5hzVRmhJhgJCiIXm42QrEd/wGPkp+xUZfs 7IJn2rC8z3+0xWg1K5TcdXLdW87DsML4+DpgRLYrWCeIWan6pLrfWVjwCZudcRJR0/PD u/znDLERalF72emEzVZ2tVMm6H9gJGTYt20UguSl7L6HQmG2h9hZL3/UnEbqgRR2KSYc YfaX7OBveD44aZHfB4AFfx3mJ6mjMCxze6NscyEm4LjMWu9jhV6sD1vWhXoqW0hVVxZV 0cAE5PPq5RBpeK+vMwgXB0lAXCYLsbKkQ16dzYpstsMxUZBML0AzZNh0E70Z+6G0RxnV odrg== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuY9ovViBu/hiXQy9lNkv50a5SYwc6/iTh60jibiGW8e4OS8/gkd UXBDGM2oKkS+1AT9eaOSKxn7+UjXgazjbBDa016+TDf/Jl9lffC6s5fg8H7A2VrZ8dVOg7fslLw BSyJdXKOUX9OCuMRrU20= X-Received: by 2002:a9f:3273:: with SMTP id y48mr1462499uad.53.1588237477748; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 02:04:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypLfQzix5nuw/nQqZ6xm8T2uWBXZ9zwHJXIgGXibJTeVUt+oF0Z+hOg4fzFRJyYyT7KFyil+wrHDXQIdGSKmfpo= X-Received: by 2002:a9f:3273:: with SMTP id y48mr1462477uad.53.1588237477483; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 02:04:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1588060706-27316-1-git-send-email-orika@mellanox.com> In-Reply-To: From: David Marchand Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 11:04:26 +0200 Message-ID: To: Ori Kam Cc: Thomas Monjalon , Matan Azrad , Shahaf Shuler , Slava Ovsiienko , David Christensen , dev , "Yigit, Ferruh" X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal/ppc: fix redefine bool type 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 Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 10:53 AM Ori Kam wrote: > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/ppc/include/rte_memcpy.h > > b/lib/librte_eal/ppc/include/rte_memcpy.h > > > index 25311ba..d234e21 100644 > > > --- a/lib/librte_eal/ppc/include/rte_memcpy.h > > > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/ppc/include/rte_memcpy.h > > > @@ -8,13 +8,12 @@ > > > > > > #include > > > #include > > > -/*To include altivec.h, GCC version must >=3D 4.8 */ > > > -#include > > > > Why move the inclusion under the __cplusplus check? > > > Just to make it in the same part as other rte includes. "Normal" rte includes are usually standalone and "#ifdef __cplusplus" safe. The rte_altivec.h header you added does not need any "#ifdef __cplusplus" protection, but it might later). But otoh, "generic/" headers are special/internal headers and this is why generic/rte_memcpy.h is under this check. So if there is no reason on your side, please leave rte_altivec.h inclusion at the same place as the previous altivec.h. Thanks. --=20 David Marchand