On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 09:59:59AM +0000, Van Haaren, Harry wrote: > > From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com] > > > > > > #include <rte_common.h> > > > -#include <rte_pci.h> > > > -#include <rte_mbuf.h> > > > +#include <rte_memory.h> > > > + > > > +struct rte_mbuf; /* we just use mbuf pointers; no need to include > > > rte_mbuf.h */ > > > > This "struct rte_mbuf" reference is not present in dpdk-next-eventdev tree. > > Are you planning to rebase to dpdk-next-eventdev? > > > The idea was to remove the include of the header file, as we never > dereference the mbuf pointer, and hence we shouldn't include a header we > don't require. > > The struct rte_mbuf here is just a forward declaration for the actual > rte_mbuf. This allows the rte_event to contain a struct rte_mbuf* without the > compiler complaining that it doesn't understand the type. > > > The current patches apply to dpdk-next-eventdev HEAD, I don't think I > understand what you're asking about rebasing.
Thanks for the clarification. It is clear now. I got confused with following comment in the cover-letter. This implementation is based on the previous software eventdev RFC patchset[1], updated to integrate with the latest rte_eventdev.h API. [1] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-November/050285.html
