From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51065A0A02; Thu, 20 May 2021 21:31:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C030C40143; Thu, 20 May 2021 21:31:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-lf1-f44.google.com (mail-lf1-f44.google.com [209.85.167.44]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77F8140041 for ; Thu, 20 May 2021 21:31:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-lf1-f44.google.com with SMTP id j6so23487961lfr.11 for ; Thu, 20 May 2021 12:31:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=hgFG8Wp/WZVlDkqAuWD185akejUefD70tXZfj65vOog=; b=Fu75X2dGIdG9OudF2Utvf78uWkt4XsCdiUDiSJx4IpdG0815DJ2CIWB26agl4ZjxqW xtglLGcvunlR4y8DNi8G4ALWDgc22wdLWcDIYAUejFSFSh/aAUXlj75iFVuYHdYqxvFk bUZM/G/mzbFsgTCYJIbCgXdPVwOuRkccm8Q87aCQtCS2AoSoPnSnIe6rhf7l7ueQNgak f2Hx0/Z+jaj/i+4PhlbCwkrwWIPEi5Ad2PYoKtb8Z/Rl+9Q6oR/auz81nwEckQBoKqLN z8dKc+4DuE3QsKu/voJz7LS/KvR7hbzXh6/vSNRrfIYAG6P0JA2MrDQ4zzYp51cMO4Az 0hgw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=hgFG8Wp/WZVlDkqAuWD185akejUefD70tXZfj65vOog=; b=HE8U73jyZDgRL8f7SStLY5mjqyTexUr5Tnhq+8NvR1n6gdqAkAIB1SH2YLARjWOp2q /dNc98V6LbC1wobtk92Wif8NOUFc1axbJKzdNRgtP8aPW27hpa5NbgCRuP5B2o4BX/BH Al1c+k6IukNVKJzYpPtO+eUygjiNbycoZcu4ILa4C1plDYtjPxL/hQGOFqGRG3OpvZFD qxiX9RSKQaEUgBDSuVFCaE+FxgH9WLRMD+Cxc/eLIfrubxOw+VXtlfDzLgillKXOkxuM bP11SdOeEot3Xh71xmu4niDHybsU6NjWZ0H//t318/bazs3i5PPGys+JvQF48Rr6mJhD 65cw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5319OnirgVTPzC7pHtbCKCiYRPMMbqSkTyNnwlC4YUWfDxYR8Z7r 6katBt8JGpJPytHTX8ZfWfo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwC5s4yIlYjoRrMIuH9NFbSl2E0e02gY0gXA8NVAKYJZ3EfsUlWIel2M6Z6o6kefvskS+6E/A== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:1315:: with SMTP id x21mr4130410lfu.87.1621539102031; Thu, 20 May 2021 12:31:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sovereign (broadband-37-110-65-23.ip.moscow.rt.ru. [37.110.65.23]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j1sm381866lfb.142.2021.05.20.12.31.40 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 20 May 2021 12:31:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 22:31:40 +0300 From: Dmitry Kozlyuk To: Akhil Goyal Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , Ferruh Yigit , Fiona Trahe , Ashish Gupta , Khoa To , Ray Kinsella , Neil Horman Message-ID: <20210520223140.6bef6046@sovereign> In-Reply-To: References: <20210310235421.23259-1-dmitry.kozliuk@gmail.com> <20210520184254.16790-1-dmitry.kozliuk@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.6 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] [PATCH v3] doc: announce API changes for Windows compatibility X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 2021-05-20 18:59 (UTC+0000), Akhil Goyal: > > Windows system headers define `s_addr`, `min`, and `max` macros which > > break structure definitions containing fields with one of these names. > > Undefining those macros would break consumer code that relies on them. > > > > From the commit message the requirement for changing the structure definitions > Is not clear. Please note that 'min' - 'max' are not macros. These are variables of a > structure which should not break any other structure/Macro in windows. Err, yes, that's what the commit message says. Structure fields of course break nothing; they are broken by Windows macros. Would this make more sense? Windows headers define `s_addr`, `min`, and `max` as macros. If DPDK headers are included after Windows ones, DPDK structure definitions containing fields with these names get broken. If DPDK headers undefined these macros, it could break consumer code relying on these macros. It is proposed to rename structure fields in DPDK, because Win32 headers are more widely used and harder to fix.