[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] EAL: move rte_common_vect.h into arch/x86

Thomas Monjalon thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com
Wed Mar 18 17:02:44 CET 2015


2015-03-18 15:24, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> 
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 1:14 PM
> > To: Ananyev, Konstantin
> > Cc: dev at dpdk.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.



More information about the dev mailing list