Re: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH v4] doc: announce API changes for Windows compatibility

[Tal Shnaiderman <talshn@nvidia.com>]

> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH v4] doc: announce API changes for
> Windows compatibility
> 
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
> 
> 
> > 2021-08-02 12:45 (UTC+0000), Akhil Goyal:
> > > > 21/07/2021 21:55, Dmitry Kozlyuk:
> > > > > 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
> > > > > (example 1), as well as any usage of such fields (example 2). If
> > > > > DPDK headers undefined these macros, it could break consumer code
> (example 3).
> > > > > It is proposed to rename structure fields in DPDK, because Win32
> > headers
> > > > > are used more widely than DPDK, as a general-purpose platform
> > compared
> > > > > to domain-specific kit, and are harder to fix because of that.
> > > > > Exact new names are left for further discussion.
> > > > >
> > > > > Example 1:
> > > > >
> > > > >     /* in DPDK public header included after windows.h */
> > > > >     struct rte_type {
> > > > >         int min;    /* ERROR: `min` is a macro */
> > > > >     };
> > > > >
> > > > > Example 2:
> > > > >
> > > > >     #include <rte_ether.h>
> > > > >     #include <winsock2.h>
> > > > >     struct rte_ether_hdr eh;
> > > > >     eh.s_addr.addr_bytes[0] = 0;    /* ERROR: `addr_s` is a macro */
> > > > >
> > > > > Example 3:
> > > > >
> > > > >     #include <winsock2.h>
> > > > >     #include <rte_ether.h>
> > > > >     struct in_addr addr;
> > > > >     addr.s_addr = 0;      /* ERROR: there is no `s_addr` field,
> > > > >                              and `s_addr` macro is undefined by
> > > > > DPDK. */
> > > > >
> > > > > Commit 6c068dbd9fea ("net: work around s_addr macro on
> Windows")
> > > > > modified definition of `struct rte_ether_hdr` to avoid the issue.
> > > > > However, the workaround assumes `#define s_addr S_addr.S_un` in
> > > > > Windows headers, which is not a part of official API.
> > > > > It also complicates the definition of `struct rte_ether_hdr`.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Kozlyuk <dmitry.kozliuk@gmail.com>
> > > > > Acked-by: Khoa To <khot@microsoft.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > +* net: ``s_addr`` and ``d_addr`` fields of ``rte_ether_hdr``
> > > > > +structure
> > > > > +  will be renamed in DPDK 21.11 to avoid conflict with Windows
> > Sockets
> > > > headers.
> > > > > +
> > > > > +* compressdev: ``min`` and ``max`` fields of
> > > > > +``rte_param_log2_range``
> > > > structure
> > > > > +  will be renamed in DPDK 21.11 to avoid conflict with Windows
> > Sockets
> > > > headers.
> > > >
> > > > The struct rte_param_log2_range should also be renamed to include
> > > > "compress" prefix.
> > > > But as we break the struct API, it is not an issue I guess.
> > > >
> > > > > +* cryptodev: ``min`` and ``max`` fields of
> > > > > +``rte_crypto_param_range``
> > > > structure
> > > > > +  will be renamed in DPDK 21.11 to avoid conflict with Windows
> > Sockets
> > > > headers.
> > > >
> > > > Acked-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > > >
> > > Can we have a local variable named as min/max?
> > > If not, then I believe it is not a good idea.
> >
> > Yes, except for inline functions in public headers.
> > The only problematic one I know of is this (rte_lru_x86.h):
> >
> > static inline int
> > f_lru_pos(uint64_t lru_list)
> > {
> >       __m128i lst = _mm_set_epi64x((uint64_t)-1, lru_list);
> >       __m128i min = _mm_minpos_epu16(lst); /* <<< */
> >       return _mm_extract_epi16(min, 1); }
> >
> > Fixing it breaks neither API nor ABI, thus no explicit deprecation notice.
> OK,
> Acked-by: Akhil Goyal <gakhil@marvell.com>
> 
> I hope when windows compilation is enabled, it will be part of CI and it will
> run on each patch which goes to patchworks.

Windows compilation is already part of CI in ci/iol-testing and ci/Intel-compilation.