25/03/2021 11:00, Ferruh Yigit: > On 3/25/2021 5:53 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote: > > On 3/24/21 11:00 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >> 24/03/2021 19:08, Ferruh Yigit: > >>> On 3/21/2021 9:00 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >>>> The header file rte_eth_ctrl.h should not be needed because > >>>> this legacy filtering API is completely replaced with the rte_flow API. > >>>> However some definitions from this file are still used by some drivers, > >>>> but such usage is already covered by an implicit include via > >>>> rte_ethdev.h. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > >>>> Acked-by: Rosen Xu <rosen...@intel.com> > >>>> Acked-by: Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agra...@nxp.com> > >>>> --- > >>>> drivers/net/dpaa2/dpaa2_ptp.c | 1 - > >>>> drivers/net/iavf/iavf_hash.c | 1 - > >>>> drivers/net/ice/ice_acl_filter.c | 1 - > >>>> drivers/net/ice/ice_hash.c | 1 - > >>>> drivers/net/ice/ice_switch_filter.c | 1 - > >>>> drivers/net/igc/igc_filter.h | 1 - > >>>> drivers/net/ipn3ke/ipn3ke_flow.c | 1 - > >>> > >>> Although this will work, if the above drives are using the defines from > >>> the > >>> header file, isn't it better to include it explicitly? > >>> > >>> What is the benefit of including the header implicitly? > >> > >> The benefit is to progressively remove rte_eth_ctrl.h. > >> I want it to disappear. > >> > > > > +1 > > > > This is just hiding its usage, the patch is not making it less used as a step > forward to remove it.
Yes you're right. The only step forward is esthetic: hiding something which should be removed. And maybe some of these files don't need the include at all. > But anyway I guess it doesn't worth spending more time to discuss it ... Feel free to reject if you feel it is not a good step.
