From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] fix the Marco conflict Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 10:55:55 +0200 Message-ID: <7302306.qBW1xKV0E1@xps13> References: <1409105634-29980-1-git-send-email-jingjing.wu@intel.com> <9091956.EmWA3cIqCF@xps13> <9BB6961774997848B5B42BEC655768F8ADBF1D@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org To: "Wu, Jingjing" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <9BB6961774997848B5B42BEC655768F8ADBF1D-0J0gbvR4kTg/UvCtAeCM4rfspsVTdybXVpNB7YpNyf8@public.gmane.org> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" 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. Yes > I remember there was someone also raised this issue few month ago. Yes, and the question was: "should we totally remove these definitions"? I think yes. > So just use the way "#ifndef #endif" to avoid the conflict. But you didn't explain difference between _NETINET_IN_H and _NETINET_IN_H_. > And it is exactly workaround as you said. Yes, it's a workaround. If rte_ip.h is included before netinet/in.h, I think there is still a problem. -- Thomas