Hi Thomas Monjalon<mailto:[email protected]> and Team, I hope you are doing well. I wanted to follow up on my earlier request regarding the review of the fix for the DPDK 24.11 and 25.11 compilation issues, which was expected to be available in a future DPDK release. Could you please confirm when the fix is likely to be available and in which upcoming release, we can expect it? Thanks & Regards, Reema Sharma ________________________________ From: Reema Sharma <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2026 2:16 PM To: Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Prakash Durgapal <[email protected]>; Pratap Rana <[email protected]>; Vijay Kumar Mahto <[email protected]>; Jaydipkumar Dhameliya <[email protected]>; Liu1, Kai <[email protected]>; Zhang, Liheng <[email protected]>; Xiong, Tanghong <[email protected]>; Mattias Rönnblom <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Request for Review of Fixes Applied for DPDK 24.11 and 25.11 Compilation Errors
Hi Thomas Monjalon<mailto:[email protected]>, Thanks for the quick response. Yes, you understood correctly. I encountered two issues while compiling a C++ application(Radisys CU module) linked with DPDK. Compiler Version: gcc version 11.4.0 (ubuntu 22.04.3) Regarding rte_bitops.h: Disabling the macros works for my current use case, so I can proceed with that approach for now. I agree that the behaviour of the __RTE_BIT_OVERLOAD macros needs further analysis, It will be great if fix for this will be available in next DPDK release. Please find the error details for your reference: dpdk/dpdk-25.11/x86_64-native-linuxapp-gcc/include/rte_bitops.h:1468:1: error: conflicting declaration of C function ‘bool rte_bit_test(const volatile uint32_t*, unsigned int)’ 1468 | rte_bit_ ## family ## fun(qualifier uint ## size ## _t *addr, arg1_type arg1_name) \ | ^~~~~~~~ dpdk/dpdk-25.11/x86_64-native-linuxapp-gcc/include/rte_bitops.h:1468:1: note: in definition of macro ‘__RTE_BIT_OVERLOAD_V_2R’ 1468 | rte_bit_ ## family ## fun(qualifier uint ## size ## _t *addr, arg1_type arg1_name) \ | ^~~~~~~~ dpdk/dpdk-25.11/x86_64-native-linuxapp-gcc/include/rte_bitops.h:1479:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘__RTE_BIT_OVERLOAD_SZ_2R’ 1479 | __RTE_BIT_OVERLOAD_SZ_2R(family, fun, qualifier, 32, ret_type, arg1_type, arg1_name) \ | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Regarding rte_cryptodev.h: This issue is not observed with DPDK 25.11. Please disregard the earlier report. Thanks & Regards, Reema Sharma ________________________________ From: Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 1:47 PM To: Reema Sharma <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Prakash Durgapal <[email protected]>; Pratap Rana <[email protected]>; Vijay Kumar Mahto <[email protected]>; Jaydipkumar Dhameliya <[email protected]>; Liu1, Kai <[email protected]>; Zhang, Liheng <[email protected]>; Xiong, Tanghong <[email protected]>; Mattias Rönnblom <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Request for Review of Fixes Applied for DPDK 24.11 and 25.11 Compilation Errors Hello, If I understand well, you hit 2 issues while compiling a C++ app linked with DPDK? Could you share the exact version of your compiler? For rte_bitops.h, if disabling these macros is OK for you, go with it for now. We will need to understand what happens exactly with __RTE_BIT_OVERLOAD macros. For rte_cryptodev.h, it may be hiding an issue somewhere else. Please could you share the exact error message? 25/03/2026 07:55, Reema Sharma: > Hi Team, > > Could you please review the attached DPDK patch > (dpdk-24.11_patch_for_crypto.patch) and confirm whether the applied fixes are > acceptable from the DPDK perspective? > Your guidance on the correct fix, if any changes are needed, would help us > proceed with CU compilation. > Kindly share an update at your earliest convenience. > Thanks & Regards, > Reema Sharma > ________________________________ > From: Xiong, Tanghong <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, March 6, 2026 3:26 PM > To: Zhang, Liheng <[email protected]>; Reema Sharma > <[email protected]>; Liu1, Kai <[email protected]> > Cc: Prakash Durgapal <[email protected]>; Pratap Rana > <[email protected]>; Vijay Kumar Mahto <[email protected]>; > Jaydipkumar Dhameliya <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: Request for Review of Fixes Applied for DPDK 24.11 and 25.11 > Compilation Errors > > > Thanks Liheng, > > Just got other info that, you can contact DPDK directly through this mail: > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>, but the response may be slow. > > > > BRs, > > Tanghong > > > > From: Zhang, Liheng <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, March 6, 2026 5:51 PM > To: Reema Sharma <[email protected]>; Xiong, Tanghong > <[email protected]>; Liu1, Kai <[email protected]> > Cc: Durgapal, Prakash <[email protected]>; Pratap Rana > <[email protected]>; Vijay Kumar Mahto <[email protected]>; > Jaydipkumar Dhameliya <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: Request for Review of Fixes Applied for DPDK 24.11 and 25.11 > Compilation Errors > > > > Yes, there is a file “MAINTAINERS” in the DPDK root path. > > The file list all the contactor for all dpdk libraries. > > You can search and contact the person for crypto issue. > > If you can’t find it, please let me know, I can forward to you. > > > > From: Reema Sharma <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Sent: Friday, March 6, 2026 5:45 PM > To: Zhang, Liheng <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; > Xiong, Tanghong <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; > Liu1, Kai <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Cc: Durgapal, Prakash > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Pratap > Rana <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Vijay Kumar > Mahto <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Jaydipkumar > Dhameliya > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: Re: Request for Review of Fixes Applied for DPDK 24.11 and 25.11 > Compilation Errors > > > > Hi Zhang, Liheng<mailto:[email protected]>, > > We have verified the behaviour on CU side and confirmed that this is not > caused by our code. The issue appears to be related to a DPDK bug. > > At the moment, we do not have any contact information for the DPDK > maintainers. > Could you please check internally and share the relevant maintainer details > or forward this issue on behalf of Radisys? > > Thanks & Regards, > > Reema Sharma > > ________________________________ > > From: Zhang, Liheng <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Sent: Friday, March 6, 2026 2:49 PM > To: Xiong, Tanghong > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Reema Sharma > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Liu1, Kai > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Cc: Prakash Durgapal > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Pratap > Rana <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Vijay Kumar > Mahto <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Jaydipkumar > Dhameliya > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: RE: Request for Review of Fixes Applied for DPDK 24.11 and 25.11 > Compilation Errors > > > > The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments > or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. > > Hi Reema > > Looks the changes are ok, but you need verify them by compiling your code. > > As I know, the following are the better procedures for DPDK bug fix: > > 1. Please first confirm the error are not related to your own code before > changing DPDK code; > 2. If it is real DPDK bug, you need contact the according DPDK maintainer > to fix it; > 3. Finally DPDK maintainer will provide an official patch; > > > > From: Xiong, Tanghong > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Sent: Friday, March 6, 2026 3:52 PM > To: Reema Sharma <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; > Liu1, Kai <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Zhang, Liheng > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Cc: Durgapal, Prakash > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Pratap > Rana <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Vijay Kumar > Mahto <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Jaydipkumar > Dhameliya > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: RE: Request for Review of Fixes Applied for DPDK 24.11 and 25.11 > Compilation Errors > > > > Hello Reema, > > > > Sorry for late reply, copy @Zhang, Liheng<mailto:[email protected]> here > for comment, thanks Liheng in advance. > > > > BRs, > > Tanghong > > > > From: Reema Sharma <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Sent: Friday, March 6, 2026 1:41 PM > To: Xiong, Tanghong > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Liu1, Kai > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Cc: Durgapal, Prakash > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Pratap > Rana <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Vijay Kumar > Mahto <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Jaydipkumar > Dhameliya > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: Re: Request for Review of Fixes Applied for DPDK 24.11 and 25.11 > Compilation Errors > > > > Hi Xiong, Tanghong<mailto:[email protected]>/ Liu1, > Kai<mailto:[email protected]>, > > Hope you are doing well. > > I am writing to check if there is any update on the pending DPDK issue raised > in this mail. > Could you please share the latest status, or let me know if any additional > inputs are required from my side to help move this forward? > > Looking forward to your response. > > Thanks & Regards, > > Reema Sharma > > ________________________________ > > From: Reema Sharma > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2026 11:27 AM > To: Xiong, Tanghong > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Liu1, Kai > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Cc: Prakash Durgapal > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Pratap > Rana <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Vijay Kumar > Mahto <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Jaydipkumar > Dhameliya > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: Request for Review of Fixes Applied for DPDK 24.11 and 25.11 > Compilation Errors > > > > Hi Xiong, Tanghong<mailto:[email protected]>/ Liu1, > Kai<mailto:[email protected]>, > > While compiling the CU with DPDK 24.11 and DPDK 25.11, we encountered the > following two errors: > > 1. Conflicting type definitions in the DPDK header file rte_bitops.h > > [cid:[email protected]] > > 1. “template with C linkage” error in the DPDK header file rte_cryptodev.h > > To proceed with our CU compilation, we applied the required fixes in the > respective DPDK include files and generated a patch named > dpdk-24.11_patch_for_crypto.patch. The updated changes are included in the > attached patch file for your review. > > Could you please review these changes from the DPDK side and confirm whether > they are acceptable, or advise on the correct fix if modifications are > required? > > Thanks & Regards, > Reema Sharma >

