19/11/2020 14:21, Tal Shnaiderman: > > Subject: Re: Windows: A fundamental issue (was eal/windows: definition for > > ETOOMANYREFS errno) > > > > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments > > > > > > Hi Nick, > > > > > This means that rte_os.h should not include POSIX/Linux definitions to > > > avoid clashes such as the one seen with this change. It's clearly not > > > sustainable if applications have to be modified every time we add more > > > Windows support to the DPDK. > > > > > > Note that this is not an isolated issue - most of the definitions in > > > rte_os.h (redefining close, unlink, strdup etc) should not be present > > > if other layers (application, other libraries, etc) are to be able to > > > implement their own POSIX/Linux support. > > > > The purpose of rte_os.h must be clarified. It now says: > > > > /** > > * This is header should contain any function/macro definition > > * which are not supported natively or named differently in the > > * ... OS. Functions will be added in future releases. > > */ > > > > This doesn't specify if the file should expose wrappers or POSIX-named bits. > > Linux and FreeBSD, however, only use it for RTE_CPU_xxx() macros for > > CPU_xxx() and don't define anything with POSIX names. So should Windows. > > > > > Please can we back this change out until we have a strategy that > > > allows us to make these definitions available for 'internal' use, but > > > prevent them being visible outside of the DPDK tree. If we can't wrap > > > them with > > > rte_* yet, perhaps the short term solution could be as simple as > > > setting RTE_DEFINE_POSIX when building DPDK code and hiding them if it is > > not set? > > > > You need the same value both inside DPDK to return it and outside of DPDK > > to match on it. Returning an unnamed, unspecified code is not an option. > > RTE_ prefix is a way to go. We can just rename ETOOMANYREFS. > > Thanks for the info Nick. > Dmitry, If we go with RTE_ETOOMANYREFS, I assume we need to define it for > Linux and FreeBSD as well?
Or we can use a "more standard" error code? > > Strictly speaking, C standard defines very few errno, so using POSIX values > > in > > API is incorrect anyway. It has to be deprecated and removed eventually, we > > already had issues with MMAP_FAILED.
