On Tue, 2017-05-02 at 15:14 +0800, Jianbo Liu wrote:
> The l3fwd_em_sse.h is enabled by NO_HASH_LOOKUP_MULTI.
> Renaming it because it's only for single hash lookup,
> and doesn't include any x86 SSE instructions.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jianbo Liu <jianbo....@linaro.org>
> ---
> examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_em.c | 2 +-
> examples/l3fwd/{l3fwd_em_sse.h => l3fwd_em_single.h} | 0
> 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> rename examples/l3fwd/{l3fwd_em_sse.h => l3fwd_em_single.h} (100%)
>
> diff --git a/examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_em.c b/examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_em.c
> index 939a16d..cccf797 100644
> --- a/examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_em.c
> +++ b/examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_em.c
> @@ -330,7 +330,7 @@ struct ipv6_l3fwd_em_route {
>
> #if defined(__SSE4_1__)
> #if defined(NO_HASH_MULTI_LOOKUP)
> -#include "l3fwd_em_sse.h"
> +#include "l3fwd_em_single.h"
> #else
> #include "l3fwd_em_hlm.h"
> #endif
> diff --git a/examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_em_sse.h
> b/examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_em_single.h
> similarity index 100%
> rename from examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_em_sse.h
> rename to examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_em_single.h
Shouldn't the guard __L3FWD_EM_SSE_H__ be update
to __L3FWD_EM_SINGLE_H__ to maintain consistency ?
Thanks and Regards,
Ashwin
