> -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 4:56 PM > To: Wu, Jingjing > Cc: dev at dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 5/7] fix the Marco conflict > > 2014-08-28 03:39, Wu, Jingjing: > > Because these macros such as IPPROTO_TCP, IPPROTO_UDP are already > > defined in <netinet/in.h>. If user's application include <netinet/in.h> > > and rte_ip.h at the same time, there will be conflict error, for > > example cmdline.c in testpmd. > > Yes > > > I remember there was someone also raised this issue few month ago. > > Yes, and the question was: "should we totally remove these definitions"? > I think yes. > Yes, it will be clear. But it also provides a way to user who doesn't use netinet/in.h.
> > So just use the way "#ifndef #endif" to avoid the conflict. > > But you didn't explain difference between _NETINET_IN_H and _NETINET_IN_H_. It is due to the different versions of in.h, some use _NETINET_IN_H_ to define the head file, while some use _NETINET_IN_H > > > And it is exactly workaround as you said. > > Yes, it's a workaround. > If rte_ip.h is included before netinet/in.h, I think there is still a problem. Yes, it's just workaround. As my understanding, in DPDK's source code System head files includes first should be as following. So I think it's OK then. > > -- > Thomas Can I send a separate patch for this? Because it has no strict relationship with flow director. Thanks Jingjing
