On 9/20/2018 1:18 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> When trying to include stdbool.h in DPDK base headers, there are a lot
> of conflicts with drivers which redefine bool/true/false
> in their compatibility layer.
>
> It is fixed by including stdbool.h in these drivers.
> Some errors with usage of bool type are also fixed in some drivers.
>
> Note: the driver qede has a surprising mix of bool and int:
> (~p_iov->b_pre_fp_hsi & ETH_HSI_VER_MINOR)
> where the first variable is boolean and the version is a number.
> It is replaced by
> !p_iov->b_pre_fp_hsi
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>
<...>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/e1000/base/e1000_osdep.h
> b/drivers/net/e1000/base/e1000_osdep.h
> index b8868049f..556ed1742 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/e1000/base/e1000_osdep.h
> +++ b/drivers/net/e1000/base/e1000_osdep.h
> @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@
> #ifndef _E1000_OSDEP_H_
> #define _E1000_OSDEP_H_
>
> +#include <stdbool.h>
> #include <stdint.h>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <stdarg.h>
> @@ -87,7 +88,6 @@ typedef int64_t s64;
> typedef int32_t s32;
> typedef int16_t s16;
> typedef int8_t s8;
> -typedef int bool;
>
> #define __le16 u16
> #define __le32 u32
> @@ -192,7 +192,4 @@ static inline uint16_t e1000_read_addr16(volatile void
> *addr)
> #define ETH_ADDR_LEN 6
> #endif
>
> -#define false FALSE
> -#define true TRUE
TRUE and FALSE also defined in this patch, can we remove them too?
> -
> #endif /* _E1000_OSDEP_H_ */
> diff --git a/drivers/net/fm10k/base/fm10k_osdep.h
> b/drivers/net/fm10k/base/fm10k_osdep.h
> index 199ebd8ea..9665239fd 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/fm10k/base/fm10k_osdep.h
> +++ b/drivers/net/fm10k/base/fm10k_osdep.h
> @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@ POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
> #ifndef _FM10K_OSDEP_H_
> #define _FM10K_OSDEP_H_
>
> +#include <stdbool.h>
> #include <stdint.h>
> #include <string.h>
> #include <rte_atomic.h>
> @@ -61,12 +62,6 @@ POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
>
> #define FALSE 0
> #define TRUE 1
> -#ifndef false
> -#define false FALSE
> -#endif
> -#ifndef true
> -#define true TRUE
> -#endif
Same here, TRUE and FALSE defined in this header and used in .c files one or two
places, what about remove them and convert usage to "true" and "false"
<...>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ixgbe/base/ixgbe_osdep.h
> b/drivers/net/ixgbe/base/ixgbe_osdep.h
> index bb5dfd2af..39e9118aa 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ixgbe/base/ixgbe_osdep.h
> +++ b/drivers/net/ixgbe/base/ixgbe_osdep.h
> @@ -36,6 +36,7 @@
> #define _IXGBE_OS_H_
>
> #include <string.h>
> +#include <stdbool.h>
> #include <stdint.h>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <stdarg.h>
> @@ -70,8 +71,6 @@
> #define FALSE 0
> #define TRUE 1
Same again, can we remove TRUE and FALSE
<...>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c
> b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c
> index cee886754..c272a4112 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c
> @@ -2527,7 +2527,9 @@ ixgbe_dev_start(struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
> struct rte_pci_device *pci_dev = RTE_ETH_DEV_TO_PCI(dev);
> struct rte_intr_handle *intr_handle = &pci_dev->intr_handle;
> uint32_t intr_vector = 0;
> - int err, link_up = 0, negotiate = 0;
> + int err;
> + bool negotiate = false;
> + bool link_up = false;
"link_up" is used in assignment to a single bit in uint16_t:
dev->data->dev_link.link_status = link_up;
When "link_up" is bool, should we change that line to:
if (link_up)
dev->data->dev_link.link_status = 1;
else
dev->data->dev_link.link_status = 0;
<...>
> @@ -3870,7 +3872,7 @@ ixgbevf_dev_info_get(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
>
> static int
> ixgbevf_check_link(struct ixgbe_hw *hw, ixgbe_link_speed *speed,
> - int *link_up, int wait_to_complete)
> + bool *link_up, int wait_to_complete)
Also need to change "wait_to_complete" to bool because below changes start
sending bool type to this function.
<...>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
> index ae21f04a1..2dc14c47f 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
> @@ -2025,7 +2025,7 @@ ixgbe_recv_pkts_lro(void *rx_queue, struct rte_mbuf
> **rx_pkts, uint16_t nb_pkts,
> struct ixgbe_rx_entry *next_rxe = NULL;
> struct rte_mbuf *first_seg;
> struct rte_mbuf *rxm;
> - struct rte_mbuf *nmb;
> + struct rte_mbuf *nmb = NULL;
This change is unrelated. Can we separate this one?
