2023-11-14 10:22 (UTC-0800), Tyler Retzlaff: > On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 08:16:22PM +0200, Etelson, Gregory wrote: > > Hello Tyler, > > > > > > > >since we are duplicating something that comes from something else that > > >has been duplicated out of windows WDK here it might be a reasonable > > >safety check to verify that our duplicated values match our > > >expectations? > > > > MEM_COALESCE_PLACEHOLDERS, MEM_PRESERVE_PLACEHOLDER, > > MEM_REPLACE_PLACEHOLDER and MEM_RESERVE_PLACEHOLDER > > are defined in Win32 API. > > > > DPDK has no expectations about these values. DPDK needs them as > > parameters to the VirtualX function calls. > > It looks like the macros were added to EAL because they were missing > > in mingw. > > > > Once compiler environment was fixed, the proper order was restored. > > yes, there is a lag between when names appear in the actual WDK and when > mingw takes a the snapshot of the headers. so long as the copy they take > is only from released WDK versions that align with an OS we shouldn't > expect the values to change but if the duplicated names in dpdk were > based upon an insider (preview version of SDK) value that later got changed > there could be a misalignment. unlikely but possible.
I think we should trust the toolchain unless there is an known bug, i.e. the patch is good as-is.
