On 5/20/2021 5:16 PM, Dmitry Kozlyuk wrote:
> 2021-05-20 17:04 (UTC+0100), Ferruh Yigit:
>> On 5/20/2021 4:50 PM, Dmitry Kozlyuk wrote:
>>> 2021-05-20 16:27 (UTC+0100), Ferruh Yigit:
>>>> On 5/20/2021 4:06 PM, Dmitry Kozlyuk wrote:
>>>>> 2021-05-20 15:24 (UTC+0100), Ferruh Yigit:
>>>>>> On 3/3/2021 10:51 PM, Dmitry Kozlyuk wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is not mandatory to rename `d_addr`, this is for consistency only.
>>>>>>> Naming in `rte_ether_hdr` will also resemble `rte_ipv4/6_hdr`.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Workaround is to define `struct rte_ether_hdr` in such a away that
>>>>>>> it can be used with or without `s_addr` macro (as defined on Windows)
>>>>>>> This can be done for Windows only or for all platforms to save space.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> #pragma push_macro("s_addr")
>>>>>>> #ifdef s_addr
>>>>>>> #undef s_addr
>>>>>>> #endif
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> struct rte_ether_hdr {
>>>>>>> struct rte_ether_addr d_addr; /**< Destination address. */
>>>>>>> RTE_STD_C11
>>>>>>> union {
>>>>>>> struct rte_ether_addr s_addr; /**< Source address. */
>>>>>>> struct {
>>>>>>> struct rte_ether_addr S_un;
>>>>>>> /**< MUST NOT be used directly, only via s_addr */
>>>>>>> } S_addr;
>>>>>>> /*< MUST NOT be used directly, only via s_addr */
>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>> uint16_t ether_type; /**< Frame type. */
>>>>>>> } __rte_aligned(2);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> #pragma pop_macro("s_addr")
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the problem with the workaround, why we can't live with it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It requires an order in include files, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> There's no problem except a tricky structure definition with fields that
>>>>> violate DPDK coding rules. It works with any include order.
>>>>>
>>>>> Will fix typos in v3, thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For following case, won't compiler take 's_addr' as macro?
>>>>
>>>> #include <rte_ether.h>
>>>> #include <winsock2.h>
>>>> struct rte_ether_hdr eh;
>>>> /* eh.s_addr.addr_bytes[0] = 0;
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, it will. The macro will expand to `S_addr.S_un` and compile
>>> successfully.
>>
>> will 'eh.S_addr.S_un.addr_bytes[0] = 0;' compile successfully?
>
> Yes, only it's `S_un.S_addr`, sorry for the typo in my explanation.
> Both code snippets from commit message compile successfully.
>
Ah, I was missing the union on the struct, yes it will build,
And +1 to deprecation notice and clean the "struct rte_ether_hdr" whenever
possible.
>>
>>> In theory, Microsoft can change the definition of `s_addr`, and while I
>>> doubt
>>> they will, it's a valid concern and a reason to remove workaround in 21.11.
>>>
>>
>
