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 B736EA0C43; Tue, 11 May 2021 22:45:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A12BA4069F; Tue, 11 May 2021 22:45:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0D044003E; Tue, 11 May 2021 22:45:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F7575C00D6; Tue, 11 May 2021 16:45:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 11 May 2021 16:45:44 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm1; bh= THK4IWTW7tdolhDliO4n+6TaXpdOoEy8r12OxhEDzUQ=; b=kgBwfUqLecyQMc55 zwbfy5oRhG6qe/vM5J22Br2qFacXu8UqWd37isiyn9jn3bKvOxaWevh5Xfc/WhnS Z2RIIAQxW7PM6eRao3Rv7AWSGD54TzvC6/Hd6kqyBg7L4LYArgYx98gb35CGd4Qc gOhq9cxIfW688pUNPnZ2NXPWrI5LtYIEbw6FPGvOyiPLNASdf9hwCpq/uBWgySpg JZEe0DPdA6UXzpWt1mN/OsvwQuD2lzulZytY8Td4B0KsS6GTCrSjsDxJ8vthcCHm tiqwlAkd/bPxQtrkySM56qG8/FRjZeGiAR9FEstWiEd1bkxox2Ry1UEpueIbVDd3 aOkHyQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=THK4IWTW7tdolhDliO4n+6TaXpdOoEy8r12OxhEDz UQ=; b=FNbAdJqTG1MOPi0eD5vP60B0ykEcGUJuBbfnNC9gLZo3F8KXuIJNo8rns edBqooi8vRZueq/QzEyYYRl0AkuLmuRJ+rVcPp8drN+21bA30GMvvcfZRztY+9rS yiSHsTni76894pnBmki71Dtz04FziUdcFWzhEHcqOe3ClPvPdZhkuSgAEMkgrWH1 rmnRb1UlVnUz5cZuJs7gboRRFPVqAtjWl9Cy5QdhMuquEng3HMkXy+csln5EhL+s db/x/RXMufFtJIv62bcfwIm7hXfd0JPV4aOWTJOycOsI13ce9HxzcmbJTesi3pri j0l4PYt4l+HeE5tAbMt/0ZfPlvWsw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrvdehtddgudehgecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhm rghsucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenuc ggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpedugefgvdefudfftdefgeelgffhueekgfffhfeujedtteeutdej ueeiiedvffegheenucfkphepjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecuvehluhhsthgvrh fuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgr lhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 11 May 2021 16:45:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Lance Richardson , Dmitry Kozlyuk Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Narcisa Ana Maria Vasile , Dmitry Malloy , Pallavi Kadam , Anatoly Burakov , dpdk stable Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 22:45:41 +0200 Message-ID: <5067179.EJ8Y43xz3P@thomas> In-Reply-To: <20210511190829.5aa8e256@sovereign> References: <20210507181025.84012-1-lance.richardson@broadcom.com> <20210511190829.5aa8e256@sovereign> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] eal: fix memory mapping for 32-bit targets 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" 11/05/2021 18:08, Dmitry Kozlyuk: > 2021-05-11 11:56 (UTC-0400), Lance Richardson: > > > v4: Identical to v1, with now included in rte_eal_paging.h > > > to (hopefully) make off_t available for Windows builds. > > > > With this version, using off_t is no longer a problem, however based on the > > new compilation error it appears that for Windows, off_t is a 32-bit type > > while size_t is a 64-bit type: > > > > ../lib/eal/windows/eal_memory.c:519:37: error: shift count >= width of > > type [-Werror,-Wshift-count-overflow] > > DWORD offset_high = (DWORD)(offset >> 32); > > ^ ~~ > > > > So the options seem to be to either use uint64_t for the offset parameter > > as in patch v3, or else introduce something like: > > typedef uint64_t rte_off_t; > > > > Thoughts/opinions? > > I'm for uint64_t: it's explicit and will hardly ever change. OK, v3 applied.