From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B098E682E for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 16:33:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from azsmga001.ch.intel.com ([10.2.17.19]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 28 Aug 2014 07:37:40 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,418,1406617200"; d="scan'208";a="473497953" Received: from fmsmsx104.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.202]) by azsmga001.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 28 Aug 2014 07:37:23 -0700 Received: from fmsmsx155.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.116.71) by fmsmsx104.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.202) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 07:37:22 -0700 Received: from shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.239.4.154) by FMSMSX155.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.116.71) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 07:37:22 -0700 Received: from shsmsx104.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.5.17]) by shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.2.246]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 22:37:21 +0800 From: "Wu, Jingjing" To: Thomas Monjalon Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 5/7] fix the Marco conflict Thread-Index: AQHPwZy6uM+I2qgzZkecQsE4GrHl+Zvj/M+AgAFhCND//9SUgIAA3phA Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 14:37:20 +0000 Message-ID: <9BB6961774997848B5B42BEC655768F8ADC286@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <1409105634-29980-1-git-send-email-jingjing.wu@intel.com> <9091956.EmWA3cIqCF@xps13> <9BB6961774997848B5B42BEC655768F8ADBF1D@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> <7302306.qBW1xKV0E1@xps13> In-Reply-To: <7302306.qBW1xKV0E1@xps13> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.40] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 5/7] fix the Marco conflict X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 14:33:45 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 4:56 PM > To: Wu, Jingjing > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 5/7] fix the Marco conflict >=20 > 2014-08-28 03:39, Wu, Jingjing: > > Because these macros such as IPPROTO_TCP, IPPROTO_UDP are already > > defined in . If user's application include > > and rte_ip.h at the same time, there will be conflict error, for > > example cmdline.c in testpmd. >=20 > Yes >=20 > > I remember there was someone also raised this issue few month ago. >=20 > Yes, and the question was: "should we totally remove these definitions"? > I think yes. >=20 Yes, it will be clear. But it also provides a way to user who doesn't use n= etinet/in.h. > > So just use the way "#ifndef #endif" to avoid the conflict. >=20 > But you didn't explain difference between _NETINET_IN_H and _NETINET_IN_H= _. It is due to the different versions of in.h, some use _NETINET_IN_H_ to def= ine the head file, while some use _NETINET_IN_H >=20 > > And it is exactly workaround as you said. >=20 > Yes, it's a workaround. > If rte_ip.h is included before netinet/in.h, I think there is still a pro= blem. Yes, it's just workaround. As my understanding, in DPDK's source code System head files includes first should be as following. So I think it's OK= then. >=20 > -- > Thomas Can I send a separate patch for this? Because it has no strict relationship= with flow director. Thanks=20 Jingjing