31/07/2019 09:26, Ananyev, Konstantin: > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net] > > 30/07/2019 12:19, Konstantin Ananyev: > > > Example BPF programs t1.c, t2.c, t3.c in folder examples/bpf are > > > failing to compile with latest dpdk.org master. > > > The reason is changes in some core DPDK header files, that causes > > > now inclusion of x86 specific headers. > > > To overcome the issue, minimize inclusion of DPDK header files > > > into BPF source code. > > > > > > Bugzilla ID: 321 > > > > > > Fixes: 9dfc06c26a8b ("test/bpf: add samples") > > > Cc: sta...@dpdk.org > > > > > > Reported-by: Michel Machado <mic...@digirati.com.br> > > > Suggested-by: Michel Machado <mic...@digirati.com.br> > > > Signed-off-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.anan...@intel.com> > > > --- > > > examples/bpf/mbuf.h | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++-- > > > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > I think that's really a bad idea to have this file. > > The BPF applications are supposed to update their own copy of mbuf? > > Right now, yes (same as KNI). > > > Please could you try to include rte_mbuf.h > > instead of duplicating the mbuf layout? > > I don't think it is possible without some rework on rte_mbuf.h itself. > I thought about that, but for that we'll probably need to put just > struct rte_mbuf definition into a separate file (rte_mbuf_core.h or so) > and might be some related definitions into rte_common.h or so. > Then re_mbuf.h will include rte_mbuf_core.h while bpf (and might be KNI?) > can include just rte_mbuf_core.h without any extra arch specific headers. > Another alternative probably to define bpf as a separate arch > (though don't know how big effort it will be). > I planned to try something like that, but then totally forgot. > And now it is too late, we are at RC4 already .
Applied as workaround for 19.08. Please try to remove this file for 19.11.