[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/7] eal: add wrappers for POSIX string functions
bruce.richardson at intel.com
Tue Feb 23 10:45:02 CET 2021
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)?
More information about the dev