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 8B2CA45AFB; Thu, 10 Oct 2024 04:34:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B46A4029A; Thu, 10 Oct 2024 04:34:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-pf1-f174.google.com (mail-pf1-f174.google.com [209.85.210.174]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F4254025C for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2024 04:34:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-pf1-f174.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-71e10ae746aso329062b3a.2 for ; Wed, 09 Oct 2024 19:34:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=networkplumber-org.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1728527666; x=1729132466; darn=dpdk.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=TCpeKm3vI40MmJxpwPSB6TKwU6daovUAFlZnvaUpWpE=; b=WyNi3nc6RhKhGqFzgz2pT5l5xjaoYmFu+3VphslS8KIuKnAkJQLSPu0NzUmv0PrpE7 YMb9tcIrsL9TigCCk2v/v6iZTli6vI7tbMEY86octdRfeahV+Wh0r0I0H+E+rBrrgDdk W11zDmMF78+bs7GHZloZiGN6Bz3wmwrmhlF31qEr0TssL56YB5HhKRiMrV0uQHQjsGCS nkpK5nUr0eY5dRqhukp0lL2oGSFobTvtre5ntJ47GGcOU7tj4igAnR2gXucMu5PDSaUI EBrNd15WMrsolmrDYwFEH7jpSQd1S5ECTl0lo+CWb41AGZfXpcFXrP25wVr8qwmToHx9 s2lQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1728527666; x=1729132466; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=TCpeKm3vI40MmJxpwPSB6TKwU6daovUAFlZnvaUpWpE=; b=pI4IAp6ht9/Ru33CIBHgg8jlMhadRygi2fEp7zBHJLS5iUXMK65MoTJ8vgGWrXUGBb u6IH1PMM15lYpoFOsJETsPrx45o3Ci5eaPs7x0BzvHb+nMPSFPLXEQHMyCDikTU/bBVb t3SRUh4tpjYLpHr/dGMSgNWelAMlhkCoZ5VkgPcR1AvyTBrZlvznzjfiKrgH26o9sPtw /baUsfmRSypfcnZMYr95O7IQ0wSyfHG3+Yo23o+xyFmTuiR72kPGl4jKirHA4ck2sXh5 1oRunOR0Mt/OAlFihj+3J4XsCP3I1UqLZYwh3KtlYMpGgg0oiCQx76JDN4uUmCicWSAi C13g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yw+lVRzkpflRUZ4ur+56Omwsa8gM0BNOwauQIjck383wYEaOt9Z GkBy0sr9wb/nd6ctCijHuYWiKFrIZqbLUG0uFCQWB4WX6OEf4qUeHTrvmi5sQXk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEMM67WAlcjyjWJHrZjfN1bAYNTeRS3XEqoTMj23ZPpSOVqBOBp520FuBSN16fNLI75dXH8jw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a20:c88a:b0:1d7:8a9:640 with SMTP id adf61e73a8af0-1d8a3c77e8bmr7206414637.44.1728527665642; Wed, 09 Oct 2024 19:34:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.local (204-195-96-226.wavecable.com. [204.195.96.226]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 41be03b00d2f7-7ea448e505fsm93740a12.16.2024.10.09.19.34.25 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 09 Oct 2024 19:34:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2024 19:34:23 -0700 From: Stephen Hemminger To: Ferruh Yigit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Ofer Dagan , Tyler Retzlaff Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/pcap: use pcap_next_ex to track errors Message-ID: <20241009193423.7c25fceb@hermes.local> In-Reply-To: References: <20240905161129.73553-1-stephen@networkplumber.org> <5fd99bc4-cad2-4a40-b4cd-6d6332cc491b@amd.com> <20241009192121.5e77260f@hermes.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 03:24:42 +0100 Ferruh Yigit wrote: > On 10/10/2024 3:21 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 03:14:48 +0100 > > Ferruh Yigit wrote: > > > >> On 9/5/2024 5:10 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > >>> Use pcap_next_ex rather than just pcap_next because pcap_next > >>> always blocks if there is no packets to receive. > >>> > >> > >> Hi Stephen, > >> > >> Do you know if using 'pcap_next_ex()' (instead of 'pcap_next()') has any > >> dependency impact? > >> Like can we rely that all libraries that support 'pcap_next()', also > >> supports 'pcap_next_ex()'? > > > > The code depends on libpcap, and that API has been in pcap since the > > early days. See it in a version from 2003! > > > > Thanks for confirming. I assume it is same with the 'iphlpapi' that > windows uses. > > Let wait a little more, it would be good if we get a test result from > Ofer first. > I think the Windows build would have caught any issue.