[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/2] drivers/net: remove explicit include of legacy filtering

[Thomas Monjalon]

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 <thomas at monjalon.net>
> >>>> Acked-by: Rosen Xu <rosen.xu at intel.com>
> >>>> Acked-by: Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal at 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.