On 2/24/21 12:53 AM, Nick Connolly wrote: > >> Allocating memory using rte_strdup() I'd use rte_free() >> to release it. I guess it will fail badly. >> So, I think that a different, more specific prefix is >> required for POSIX wrappers. > > Andrew: my understanding of Bruce's proposal is that the strdup() name > will now be kept (in this case through an inline definition), so I think > this will be ok.
Very good, glad to hear it. Thanks. > However, your comment reminded me of something else > that it's probably worth mentioning as an aside: > > As a general guideline on Windows, memory allocated within a shared > library is best freed within the same DLL to ensure it goes back to the > correct heap. So we'd want to avoid calling strdup and then returning > the value to the application for it to free (hopefully this doesn't > happen). With an inline definition there's no change in behaviour, but > adding rte_strdup (or anything else that calls malloc) into librte_eal > might be an issue. > > Regards, > Nick
