23/06/2026 12:29, Marat Khalili: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]> > > Sent: Tuesday 23 June 2026 11:19 > > To: Marat Khalili <[email protected]> > > Cc: Konstantin Ananyev <[email protected]>; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/25] bpf/validate: introduce debugging interface > > > > 12/06/2026 12:47, Marat Khalili: > > > +#ifndef LIST_FOREACH_SAFE > > > +/* We need this macro which neither Linux nor EAL for Linux include yet. > > > */ > > > +#define LIST_FOREACH_SAFE(var, head, field, tvar) > > > \ > > > + for ((var) = LIST_FIRST((head)); \ > > > + (var) && ((tvar) = LIST_NEXT((var), field), 1); \ > > > + (var) = (tvar)) > > > +#else > > > +#ifdef RTE_EXEC_ENV_LINUX > > > +#error "Don't need LIST_FOREACH_SAFE in this version of DPDK anymore, > > > remove it." > > > +#endif > > > +#endif > > > > It fails on Alpine Linux. > > Why adding this #error? > > > > This is interesting. My mental model was that Linux is never going to have > LIST_FOREACH_SAFE, but DPDK will eventually gain its own polyfill. I was > actually expecting it to happen before my patch is published, so this was a > reminder to remove my own definition since it clearly belongs to some common > library. Turns out I was wrong on both accounts: there are Linuxes that define > LIST_FOREACH_SAFE, and I managed to submit faster. Apart from these > organizational issues the whole else branch can be safely removed. Do you want > me to submit an updated version?
Yes would be nice so we will have a full CI run on it now that the dependency is merged in main.
