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 030B0A04C0; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 17:33:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0D991D690; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 17:33:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [63.128.21.124]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 507361D449 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 17:33:40 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1600356819; 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: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=36jMEpVNc5/Y8T3bn3EJBmR2p0wYtkKoOvxVXZHlNJY=; b=fv8PWX6E+V75mgZmX994AXKNZKQ3g0phVvKjvbKYPEOoO3nNKAS5sG7MCLrjWyh/3wFe/I bQKArCUpR0meqVmUB8a6rhy4+jWTKBRMk6rcJC16q46XoSE2eRi+C7clJsuthABdtnnOBH wl/0J532v75WtM5h9ZNBmXU25KgojG8= Received: from mail-vs1-f71.google.com (mail-vs1-f71.google.com [209.85.217.71]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-226-x_4lEaRJO0mm6YmzPpVm4w-1; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 11:33:35 -0400 X-MC-Unique: x_4lEaRJO0mm6YmzPpVm4w-1 Received: by mail-vs1-f71.google.com with SMTP id g5so616658vsg.14 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 08:33:35 -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=36jMEpVNc5/Y8T3bn3EJBmR2p0wYtkKoOvxVXZHlNJY=; b=f3CHGBeqllQLj2nNZ0ueuBm9zKB08v429ZidlLgUnf/CPt54G2v69B53VHUPMHUjRv eHGpf+gMVZ7BmRnLKbbX2gT1gFRtUdFSXCiMVdUcJOkJqci4W0Q+FmBu+gk6SN9wYZNf YMQPnDGI0ceMhCWO+0Z9LsSQWc7Qt3cVfWHXKDHLy2EtKHM9rFrb+7lWQ4dgTGFGh7HL sWSq7pdlvxbF18D7GhAzk4bslGrlN/XE2gzbcNYxjkRfQTJslYbbN29PhnqOyFWuJNMV PvRDJqfbf5OG2t8yy9p9rQ64NQcK26AROh8RgVz6YODiYMy9CkZLaV+1Zs97kMHO+w5b +RHw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532em5iyYmxaJjKw8L8A8AFFMH5m9Bcph+DOWBWbH12Uw7ghQ7U+ MFA+BSSU2y88MAw+kcSyn/4xDgj0F1dwo9XBujZxuYj7K1dswXSSrKNttBI5UleuBLrFD8kIM50 ByPl2OBsgu9dmo6eWTQ4= X-Received: by 2002:a67:e2c2:: with SMTP id i2mr18263510vsm.27.1600356815035; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 08:33:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyr0pZkY+dTffGir+cdh37lrNhMvMiHfK3YBrRLqrU1sEgoBY8eUPuOFHIafhsbSdU9XrV5IxCMUQyDI27gssE= X-Received: by 2002:a67:e2c2:: with SMTP id i2mr18263477vsm.27.1600356814688; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 08:33:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200917150917.22945-1-david.marchand@redhat.com> <20200917152920.GH1568@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20200917152920.GH1568@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> From: David Marchand Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 17:33:23 +0200 Message-ID: To: Bruce Richardson Cc: dev , dpdk stable , Fan Zhang , Luca Boccassi Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=dmarchan@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] crypto/scheduler: fix header install with meson 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, Sep 17, 2020 at 5:29 PM Bruce Richardson wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 05:09:17PM +0200, David Marchand wrote: > > The headers variable is only used in lib/meson.build context. > > For drivers, an explicit install_headers() is necessary. > > > > Reproduced while compiling the l2fwd-crypto example out of meson > > (which can be done by adding it in devtools/test-meson-builds.sh > > examples build test). > > > > Fixes: cd2b6458a1cb ("crypto/scheduler: add in meson build") > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org > > > > Signed-off-by: David Marchand > > --- > > drivers/crypto/scheduler/meson.build | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > Originally I only put the "headers" variable in the "lib" folder > meson.build because it was not expected that many drivers should have > private headers. However, perhaps it's worthwhile adding it now: > a) because private headers, while not common, are not unusual > b) for consistency and ease of use. > > Thoughts? Yep, I can do it in a followup patch now, still looking at your RFC series though.. :-) -- David Marchand