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 4556BA10DA for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 10:20:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BD941B956; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 10:20:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga12.intel.com (mga12.intel.com [192.55.52.136]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B66E25F13; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 10:20:08 +0200 (CEST) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga008.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.65]) by fmsmga106.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 31 Jul 2019 01:20:07 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.64,329,1559545200"; d="scan'208";a="166311708" Received: from fmsmsx104.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.202]) by orsmga008.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 31 Jul 2019 01:20:07 -0700 Received: from fmsmsx601.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.126.81) by fmsmsx104.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.202) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.439.0; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 01:20:07 -0700 Received: from fmsmsx601.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.126.81) by fmsmsx601.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.126.81) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1713.5; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 01:20:06 -0700 Received: from bgsmsx152.gar.corp.intel.com (10.224.48.50) by fmsmsx601.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.126.81) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256) id 15.1.1713.5 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 01:20:06 -0700 Received: from bgsmsx101.gar.corp.intel.com ([169.254.1.176]) by BGSMSX152.gar.corp.intel.com ([169.254.6.179]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 13:50:04 +0530 From: "Varghese, Vipin" To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" , "dev@dpdk.org" CC: "stable@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] examples/bpf: fix compilation issue Thread-Index: AQHVRsBWWIj1vjAuMEyhVGH1J9l7QqbkDbjw///k+oCAAHBesA== Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 08:20:03 +0000 Message-ID: <4C9E0AB70F954A408CC4ADDBF0F8FA7D4D39A259@BGSMSX101.gar.corp.intel.com> References: <20190730101927.1665-1-konstantin.ananyev@intel.com> <4C9E0AB70F954A408CC4ADDBF0F8FA7D4D399F1E@BGSMSX101.gar.corp.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772580168A5FD47@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772580168A5FD47@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ctpclassification: CTP_NT x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiZWQzYmRkNzEtYWFiNi00YTZmLTk3OTItZGM3MjA5MjljMGRmIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX05UIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE3LjEwLjE4MDQuNDkiLCJUcnVzdGVkTGFiZWxIYXNoIjoiQzl4bXVQOXh1T29kQmc0VUFKaGtiNm9sVkZkS1wvSnJhZis4dVhieVhRSjhlUlpNQzB3OTdkOVg5UWRwSUQxZkMifQ== dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 11.2.0.6 dlp-reaction: no-action x-originating-ip: [10.223.10.10] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [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" Snipped > > > Example BPF programs t1.c, t2.c, t3.c in folder examples/bpf are > > > failing to compile with latest dpdk.org master. > > > > As a note, the file t3.c is one which fails to get compiled. >=20 > t2.c also uses rte_mbuf, so same story for both. Thank you. So, the rewrite will be ' Example BPF programs t2.c, and t3.c in= folder examples/bpf are failing to compile with latest dpdk.org master.' >=20 > > > > > The reason is changes in some core DPDK header files, that causes > > > now inclusion of x86 specific headers. > > > > snipped > > > > > > > > > > #include > > > #include > > > -#include > > > > > > #ifdef __cplusplus > > > extern "C" { > > > @@ -364,6 +363,23 @@ typedef struct { > > > volatile int16_t cnt; /**< An internal counter value. */ } > > > rte_atomic16_t; > > > > > > +#define RTE_CACHE_LINE_MIN_SIZE 64 /**< Minimum Cache line size= . > */ > > > > The definition for RTE_CACHE_LINE_MIN_SIZE is present in ` rte_config.h= `. >=20 > I believe it is not: > $ find lib config -type f | xargs grep CACHE_LINE_MIN_SIZE > lib/librte_eal/linux/eal/include/rte_kni_common.h:#define > RTE_CACHE_LINE_MIN_SIZE 64 > lib/librte_eal/linux/eal/include/rte_kni_common.h: char pad3[8] > __attribute__((__aligned__(RTE_CACHE_LINE_MIN_SIZE))); > lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_memory.h:#define > RTE_CACHE_LINE_MIN_SIZE 64 /**< Minimum Cache line size. */ > lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_memory.h:#define > __rte_cache_min_aligned __rte_aligned(RTE_CACHE_LINE_MIN_SIZE) >=20 > Konstantin Thanks. So, is not the best approach to place RTE_CACHE_LINE_MIN_SIZE in rt= e_config.h to prevent multiple definition (rte_kni_common.h, rte_memory.h a= nd examples/bpf/mbuf.h)?