Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/1] eal: Don't fail secondary if primary is missing tailqs

[Jean Tourrilhes <jt@labs.hpe.com>]

On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 09:58:01AM +0200, David Marchand wrote:
> Hello,

	Hi there,

> I thought you had unaligned binaries.
> You are compiling only one binary ?

	Primary is compiled using the DPDK build process.
	Secondary is build using the Snort build process.
	Both are pointing to the exact same libdpdk.a.

> I am not sure Sergio is talking about the constructor approach.

	But, this is exactly the cause of the problem.

> Anyway, the constructors invocation order should not matter.

	For tailq, I agree. For mempool constructors, order do matter.

> Primary and secondary processes build their local tailq entries list
> in constructors (so far, I can't see how this is wrong).
> "Later", each process updates this list with the actual pointer to the
> lists by looking at the shared memory in rte_eal_init (calling
> rte_eal_tailqs_init).
> 
> What matters is that secondary tailqs are a subset of the primary tailqs.

	Which is not the case for me, I have secondary including all
tailqs, and primary only having a subset.
	Check here :
		http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-September/047329.html

> I still have some trouble understanding what you are trying to do.

	Having things work ;-)

> As Sergio asked, can you come up with a simplified example/use case ?

	Not trivial. I'll see what I can do.

> Thanks.
> 
> 
> -- 
> David Marchand

	Regards,

	Jean