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;
