Improved smart pointer usages to KniDevice and DpdkDevice.

[Dimi1010]

This PR rewrites some functions that were using manual lifetime tracking with std::unique_ptr.

[seladb]

@Dimi1010 did you have a chance to run the DPDK test locally?
Unfortunately, the CI doesn't run them because setting up DPDK in CI is not easy, so we need to run them locally...

[Dimi1010]

@Dimi1010 did you have a chance to run the DPDK test locally? Unfortunately, the CI doesn't run them because setting up DPDK in CI is not easy, so we need to run them locally...

Unfortunately, no. :/ I mostly have it setup to validate it can build, but unsure how, or even if it can be setup to run on WSL, and I don't have a bare-metal Unix OS currently.

[seladb]

@Dimi1010 did you have a chance to run the DPDK test locally? Unfortunately, the CI doesn't run them because setting up DPDK in CI is not easy, so we need to run them locally...

Unfortunately, no. :/ I mostly have it setup to validate it can build, but unsure how, or even if it can be setup to run on WSL, and I don't have a bare-metal Unix OS currently.

I don't think DPDK can run in WSL 😕
I also don't have a bare-metal Linux device, but I have Ubuntu running inside a VirtualBox VM, and DPDK can be easily set up there. Do you think you can set one up? If not, I can test it on my VM...

[Dimi1010]

@Dimi1010 did you have a chance to run the DPDK test locally? Unfortunately, the CI doesn't run them because setting up DPDK in CI is not easy, so we need to run them locally...

Unfortunately, no. :/ I mostly have it setup to validate it can build, but unsure how, or even if it can be setup to run on WSL, and I don't have a bare-metal Unix OS currently.

I don't think DPDK can run in WSL 😕 I also don't have a bare-metal Linux device, but I have Ubuntu running inside a VirtualBox VM, and DPDK can be easily set up there. Do you think you can set one up? If not, I can test it on my VM...

Sure, I can try to set one up, if you know it can run there. :)

[seladb]

Sure, I can try to set one up, if you know it can run there. :)

You can follow the instructions here: https://pcapplusplus.github.io/docs/dpdk
It's a good opportunity to see if these instructions are accurate, up to date, and clear 🙂

[seladb]

BTW, maybe at some point we need to figure out how to run DPDK tests in CI, but I gave some thought to it and it won't be easy...

[Dimi1010]

Sure, I can try to set one up, if you know it can run there. :)

You can follow the instructions here: https://pcapplusplus.github.io/docs/dpdk It's a good opportunity to see if these instructions are accurate, up to date, and clear 🙂

the docs still say we test against ubuntu 20.04 and 22.04 when the CI runs on 22.04 and 24.04

[seladb]

Sure, I can try to set one up, if you know it can run there. :)

You can follow the instructions here: https://pcapplusplus.github.io/docs/dpdk It's a good opportunity to see if these instructions are accurate, up to date, and clear 🙂

the docs still say we test against ubuntu 20.04 and 22.04 when the CI runs on 22.04 and 24.04

Thanks! I will fix it. Please let me know if you find more issues with the documentation

[Dimi1010]

This link https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/prog_guide/kernel_nic_interface.html in the docstring of setup_dpdk.py appears to be broken.

[seladb]

@Dimi1010 I fixed the 2 issues mentioned above ☝️

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 83.46%. Comparing base (4ff654a) to head (bb07f68).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##              dev    #1901      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   83.46%   83.46%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         312      312              
  Lines       54621    54613       -8     
  Branches    11483    11550      +67     
==========================================
- Hits        45590    45583       -7     
- Misses       7792     8181     +389     
+ Partials     1239      849     -390     

Flag	Coverage Δ
alpine320	75.90% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️
fedora42	75.43% <ø> (-0.03%)	⬇️
macos-14	81.57% <ø> (ø)
macos-15	81.55% <ø> (ø)
mingw32	69.94% <ø> (ø)
mingw64	69.92% <ø> (+0.11%)	⬆️
npcap	?
rhel94	75.46% <ø> (ø)
ubuntu2004	59.46% <ø> (ø)
ubuntu2004-zstd	59.59% <ø> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
ubuntu2204	75.41% <ø> (ø)
ubuntu2204-icpx	57.84% <ø> (-0.03%)	⬇️
ubuntu2404	75.49% <ø> (-0.03%)	⬇️
ubuntu2404-arm64	75.57% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️
unittest	83.46% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️
windows-2022	85.43% <ø> (+0.16%)	⬆️
windows-2025	85.46% <ø> (+0.11%)	⬆️
winpcap	85.46% <ø> (-0.09%)	⬇️
xdp	52.98% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[tigercosmos]

LGTM