From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Neil Horman Subject: Re: lib: include rte_memory.h for __rte_cache_aligned Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 09:17:27 -0500 Message-ID: <20141211141727.GC28213@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> References: <1415381289-43291-1-git-send-email-jyu@vmware.com> <20141211002838.GA24240@localhost.localdomain> <30845403.kPBAiWVWY3@xps13> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org To: Thomas Monjalon Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <30845403.kPBAiWVWY3@xps13> 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" On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 01:36:54AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > Hi Neil, >=20 > 2014-12-10 19:28, Neil Horman: > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 07:09:03PM +0000, Jia Yu wrote: > > > Hi Neil, > > >=20 > > > Moving __rte_cache_aligned right after struct keyword will help. On= the > > > other hand, enforcing this rule for existing (100+) and future defi= nitions > > > will be difficult. It=B9s clearer and a good practice to include he= ader file > > > explicitly. > > >=20 > > You need to include the header file regardless of what you do. The a= dvantage to > > placing the macro right after the struct keyword is that failure to i= nclude the > > header will result in a compiler error, rather than silent behavioral= changes > > and run time breakage. > >=20 > > You don't have to enforce putting the attribute after the struct keyw= ord, I'd > > say just move them now to protect the current code. Subsequent patch= authors > > will see the existing style and follow suit. Or they won't, and we'l= l point out > > the issue during review. >=20 > It should be a different patch for next release cycle. > Let's apply this fix only for 1.8.0. >=20 Why? Theres no harm in doing so now. Neil