From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH] llib/ibrte_net: workaround to avoid macro conflict Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 08:41:53 +0100 Message-ID: <2311642.9a52mKMPYp@xps13> References: <1412045348-18543-1-git-send-email-jingjing.wu@intel.com> <9BB6961774997848B5B42BEC655768F8B04B34@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> <20141009112918.GA20940@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org To: Neil Horman , Matthew Hall Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20141009112918.GA20940-B26myB8xz7F8NnZeBjwnZQMhkBWG/bsMQH7oEaQurus@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" 2014-10-09 07:29, Neil Horman: > On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 05:20:31AM +0000, Wu, Jingjing wrote: > > Hi, Neil > > > > To have rte_ip.h include netinet/in.h directly is also a choice. > > > > But netinet/in.h contains a lot of extra stuff, and these may be useless some DPDK applications, such as classification. > > rte_ip.h provides a more simplify way for the IP protocol layer. > > > Not sure what the relevance there is. The definitions you want are > standardized, theres no need for the dpdk to re-invent that wheel. Get them > from the system include file. The fact that extra macros are available in > netinet.h is neither relevant or true (as you can't really say for certain what > an application will need). Neil, Matthew, I totally agree with your point of view. Please, could you propose a patch to fix this issue? Thanks -- Thomas