On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 05:29:28PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 19/08/2025 17:24, Stephen Hemminger: > > On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 10:37:27 +0200 > > Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote: > > > > > 19/08/2025 01:27, Stephen Hemminger: > > > > +++ b/lib/eal/include/bsd_queue.h > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,1075 @@ > > > > +/*- > > > > + * SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause > > > > + * > > > > + * Copyright (c) 1991, 1993 > > > > + * The Regents of the University of California. All rights > > > > reserved. > > > > + * > > > > + * This is a copy of sys/queue.h which is used to overcome > > > > + * missing parts in the glibc version (and Windows). > > > > + */ > > > > + > > > > +#ifndef _SYS_QUEUE_H_ > > > > +#define _SYS_QUEUE_H_ > > > > > > Shouldn't we rename this include flag? with RTE_ prefix? > > > > > > No, by keeping the same prefix if the user includes both sys/queue.h and > > bsd_queue.h > > there will be no confilcts. > > You mean by checking _SYS_QUEUE_H_ which is the same as sys/queue.h? > So if I include sys/queue.h first, I will have a limited version. > It means we should not include it before any DPDK include. > It looks like a limitation for DPDK users. > I think we should define two defines for our header, and warn if sys/queue.h is included first.
#ifndef _RTE_BSD_QUEUE_H_ #ifdef _SYS_QUEUE_H_ #warning ... #endif #define _RTE_BSD_QUEUE_H_ #define _SYS_QUEUE_H_ ... #endif This way, sys/queue.h contents will be skipped after our header, but if it's included first, the user gets a warning about incomplete implementation. /Bruce
