Re: [PATCH] EAL: move rte_common_vect.h into arch/x86

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon-pdR9zngts4EAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]

2015-03-18 15:24, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> 
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon-pdR9zngts4EAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 1:14 PM
> > To: Ananyev, Konstantin
> > Cc: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] EAL: move rte_common_vect.h into arch/x86
> > 
> > Hi Konstantin,
> > 
> > 2015-03-18 10:58, Konstantin Ananyev:
> > >  lib/librte_eal/common/Makefile                     |   1 -
> > >  .../common/include/arch/x86/rte_common_vect.h      | 128 +++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_common_vect.h    | 128 ---------------------
> > 
> > I think rte_vect.h is a better name as common is not anymore relevant.
> 
> I don't mind, but it means more changes - all files which include it, would need to be changed.

I think file naming deserves it.

> > Should we add an empty file in ppc_64 directory?
> 
> I thought about that too, but it seems not necessary.
> It is included by:
> lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.h
> lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/x86/rte_memcpy.h
> lib/librte_acl/rte_acl_osdep.h 
> 
> As I understand, neither LPM, neither ACL are supported on PPC right now.
> Again, if we'll provide an empty one for PPC, it wouldn't help to compile LPM/ACL on PPC anyway,
> as both use SSE instrincts inside their code.

Yes, it was an open question.
It's probably better to create the PPC file when really needed.