On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 01:57:50AM +0300, Dmitry Kozlyuk wrote: > 2021-02-22 14:26, Bruce Richardson: > > As you say, though, the main issue will be whether we have instances in > > public header files or not. I would hope that no static inline functions in > > DPDK use any of the functions in question, but I'm not sure. Perhaps if > > there are instances in public headers those could be reworked to not use > > the problematic functions. > > No instances of strdup(), strncasecmp(), or strtok_r() in any DPDK headers. > > > For any functions, such as strdup, which are not in a public header I would > > suggest the following as a possible start point, based off what was done > > for strlcpy. > > > > * In DPDK (probably EAL), define an rte_strdup function for use as a > > fallback. > > * Inside the meson build scripts, use "cc.has_function()" to check if the > > regular strdup function is available. If not, then add "-DRTE_NO_STRDUP" > > to the c_args for DPDK building > > * Inside our DPDK header (rte_string_fns.h in the strdup case), we can add > > a conditional define such as: > > #ifdef RTE_NO_STRDUP > > #define strdup(s) rte_strdup(s) > > #endif > > > > Thoughts on this? > > Looks good to me, I can rework the patchset like so. > > Policy considerations: > 1. The approach only applies to platform-agnostic functions, like str*(). > Functions like sleep() still belong to librte_eal. > 2. Deprecated functions, like index(3p), should be replaced > with alternatives suggested by the standard. > 3. If a standard C11 alternative is available, it should be used. > This mostly applies to types, like u_int32 -> uint32_t > (it's even in DPDK coding style already, isn't it?). > > A nit: RTE_NO_XXX -> RTE_HAS_XXX (for consistency with existing macros)?
Sure, thanks.
