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 65F01A0A0E for ; Tue, 11 May 2021 17:56:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C2574003E; Tue, 11 May 2021 17:56:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-oo1-f42.google.com (mail-oo1-f42.google.com [209.85.161.42]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC2604003E for ; Tue, 11 May 2021 17:56:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-oo1-f42.google.com with SMTP id s24-20020a4aead80000b02901fec6deb28aso4288997ooh.11 for ; Tue, 11 May 2021 08:56:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=broadcom.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=WmbsvrS5KobXgmcc4dGuV9lW65Gn9KI3RDE19MjFZ9w=; b=ai+feoPi8FV2UYkwW/+lWAgkgmzFjqe90G3xQ+YUlLBVT+7xPpqWgoDPunf/dZ8kIa edgL5jzmbzpAkr6/Cl29ehReC9cmGBWdpt2KU628L5uaPu+uV7NnL1gI2meBQsnjHndy 8IQOxOrd8N9ylEVbuEYhi4kqoZO+2EqV/2uHg= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=WmbsvrS5KobXgmcc4dGuV9lW65Gn9KI3RDE19MjFZ9w=; b=A8cax0IlzW43dbtexomHShCprp6aANB0SHJCPzdu0ujOeLtkDHKpkW9bO0dCPAJ7H2 EsFMOLJ1GwjUI7BKhbUy0HMArv8iuoVOOjgPVxWEioAhzTg8gMxHZmM03bPqQzohrxDy qWWkFSUahAP0rsdvvDRBuKv2xb/2CCrTWpaE4MNG3/d65ml/mry9FYpFqehwzE6y4BJe Yb8HoQhzEehl4HfA3hMAmC6Cd5uGt0R5dbFimT9kIWTlAXdhR91gSj+2eJUHv75BcnMu GGv9tgNfXXv2Oo0y1oRpuCXC6vuO5Wr7hhLWcby0lcie6+8BYMBQOLz1IymWfZZVGgjr a01w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5334fbs/2ZCYbyYVS09sCJogpJQs9u/REWKtdsxyy+jv5Wa2KgeB UsSQUORQHs7ornmp3JDIOJDceA6LnqZ7vuRp82MxNw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxnXZG5XeaFmhoYzyNsIpeCfXO+55FN52QFbd/W5+xfHsbLZCjvVb54pq0DEC5P+i36YeRwXYswTdCXz9Bu0W4= X-Received: by 2002:a4a:625c:: with SMTP id y28mr23800125oog.45.1620748592095; Tue, 11 May 2021 08:56:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210507181025.84012-1-lance.richardson@broadcom.com> <20210511144554.146987-1-lance.richardson@broadcom.com> In-Reply-To: <20210511144554.146987-1-lance.richardson@broadcom.com> From: Lance Richardson Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 11:56:20 -0400 Message-ID: To: Dmitry Kozlyuk , Narcisa Ana Maria Vasile , Dmitry Malloy , Pallavi Kadam Cc: dev , Anatoly Burakov , Thomas Monjalon , dpdk stable Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="0000000000001f8b6d05c20ff0a8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v4] eal: fix memory mapping for 32-bit targets X-BeenThere: stable@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: patches for DPDK stable branches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: stable-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "stable" --0000000000001f8b6d05c20ff0a8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > 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? --0000000000001f8b6d05c20ff0a8--