2014-12-11 09:17, Neil Horman: > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 01:36:54AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > Hi Neil, > > > > 2014-12-10 19:28, Neil Horman: > > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 07:09:03PM +0000, Jia Yu wrote: > > > > Hi Neil, > > > > > > > > Moving __rte_cache_aligned right after struct keyword will help. On the > > > > other hand, enforcing this rule for existing (100+) and future > > > > definitions > > > > will be difficult. It?s clearer and a good practice to include header > > > > file > > > > explicitly. > > > > > > > You need to include the header file regardless of what you do. The > > > advantage to > > > placing the macro right after the struct keyword is that failure to > > > include the > > > header will result in a compiler error, rather than silent behavioral > > > changes > > > and run time breakage. > > > > > > You don't have to enforce putting the attribute after the struct keyword, > > > I'd > > > say just move them now to protect the current code. Subsequent patch > > > authors > > > will see the existing style and follow suit. Or they won't, and we'll > > > point out > > > the issue during review. > > > > It should be a different patch for next release cycle. > > Let's apply this fix only for 1.8.0. > > > Why? Theres no harm in doing so now.
It's a coding style good practice, not a bug fix. We are now integrating only bug fixes and docs. We have to put a limit to avoid last minutes bugs. -- Thomas
