[PATCH v3 0/9] introduce common FOREACH_SAFE macros

[Burakov, Anatoly]

On 8/20/2025 8:42 AM, Morten Brørup wrote:
>> From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:stephen at networkplumber.org]
>> Sent: Monday, 18 August 2025 18.34
>>
>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 16:15:29 -0700
>> Stephen Hemminger <stephen at networkplumber.org> wrote:
>>
>>> This series adds common macros for safe iteration over lists.
>>> It is a subset copy of the macros from FreeBSD that are
>>> missing from the Linux header sys/queue.h
>>>
>>> Chose this over several other options:
>>>    - let each driver define their own as needed.
>>>      One Intel driver got it wrong, others will as well.
>>>    - rename all the queue macros to RTE_XXX variants.
>>>      Seems like useless renaming and confusion.
>>>    - Several distros have libbsd package with the correct macros.
>>>      But adding yet another dependency to DPDK would be annoying
>>>      for something this basic.
>>>
>>> There are more macros in FreeBSD header that could be useful,
>>> but we can add those later as needed here.
>>>
>>>   lib/eal/include/rte_queue.h              | 174 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> Revisiting this and wondering about naming...
>> The file rte_queue.h is not really DPDK (ie not related to runtime
>> environment).
>> Thinking of calling it bsd_queue.h as a compromise
> 
> Since it replaces sys/queue.h, then maybe sys_queue.h (or rte_sys_queue.h).
> 
> But more importantly:
> It is not really DPDK, and thus shouldn't really be part of the EAL.
> So here's an idea:
> As part of de-bloating the EAL, can we somehow add a new directory structure for independent "libraries" like this?
> And treat this rte_queue.h file as a "header file only" library, and put it there.
> Then, build wise, the EAL could depend on this "library".
> 

IMO it depends on what you mean by "EAL". EAL is environment abstraction 
layer, and this header abstracts OS, thereby meeting description of an 
"environment abstraction layer"?

-- 
Thanks,
Anatoly