From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77CEFA0679 for <public@inbox.dpdk.org>; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 17:39:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C2C11B4A6; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 17:39:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 173861B49C for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 17:39:04 +0200 (CEST) X-Amp-Result: UNSCANNABLE X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga005.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.32]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 03 Apr 2019 08:39:03 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,305,1549958400"; d="scan'208";a="334663799" Received: from yexl-server.sh.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.67.110.206]) by fmsmga005.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Apr 2019 08:39:02 -0700 Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 23:34:10 +0800 From: Ye Xiaolong <xiaolong.ye@intel.com> To: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com> Cc: Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>, dev@dpdk.org Message-ID: <20190403153410.GD36385@intel.com> References: <56ce5855b02d47a085a8d36451561c400f0b039c.camel@debian.org> <0dde8c20e9992047f29d39ad45dcf511244a5297.camel@debian.org> <80c81c0c-cf64-59f8-a592-26cd865fbd89@intel.com> <37073834d0b9a9f5a6e9f39bac3adc5eb29779ab.camel@debian.org> <5bc49c51-04f4-6f73-889d-d3c0ff749784@intel.com> <46d92b70a40581462f5ee3ba301c793c4cf0c2df.camel@debian.org> <20190403144327.GB36385@intel.com> <8f1ac08396f0deaca458201370c08b1334ee6b84.camel@debian.org> <20190403151458.GC36385@intel.com> <20190403152313.GB1325@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190403152313.GB1325@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v9 1/1] net/af_xdp: introduce AF XDP PMD driver X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/> List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> Message-ID: <20190403153410.5tLHE-VzE8d6X5Kq93J3EUSjyG3VmJm_PAPwCIhyHaA@z> On 04/03, Bruce Richardson wrote: >On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 11:14:58PM +0800, Ye Xiaolong wrote: >> On 04/03, Luca Boccassi wrote: >> >On Wed, 2019-04-03 at 22:43 +0800, Ye Xiaolong wrote: >> >> On 04/03, Luca Boccassi wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >> > > Got it. >> >> > > >> >> > > In above steps, 'libbpf' also build from kernel source tree, will >> >> > > it >> >> > > be problem >> >> > > in you builds to not have it build from source? >> >> > > >> >> > > If not, taking into account that xsk.h also will be fixed, only >> >> > > 'tools/include/asm/barrier.h' remains the problem, and it looks >> >> > > like >> >> > > it can be >> >> > > solved, please check above. >> >> > >> >> > libbpf is already packaged separately in Debian and I think other >> >> > distros will follow soon, so it's all good for me once the barrier >> >> > issue is solved. >> >> > >> >> > https://packages.debian.org/buster/libbpf-dev >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > From the makefile's perspective it should not matter where it comes >> >> > from - the headers should be expected to be in /usr/include and the >> >> > library in /usr/lib* - and pkg-config can help with that if >> >> > available. >> >> > And if a user wants to use a custom path, then it's no different >> >> > than >> >> > any of the other dependencies on other external libraries >> >> >> >> From tools/lib/bpf/Makefile, after make install_lib and make >> >> install_headers, >> >> the headers and library would be put in /usr/local/include/bpf and >> >> /usr/local/lib*, >> >> Is it ok? >> > >> >Yes certainly that's fine, that's expected for local installations, and >> >users can specify a prefix with the upstream's makefile if they want to >> >install somewhere else. >> >> In my local test, if I run `make install_lib` to install the libbpf.so to >> /usr/local/lib64, `-lbpf` specified in af_xdp pmd still fails to find the library, >> the build would end up with a lot of undefined references which are defined in libbpf. >> It means during dpdk compilation, it won't search libraries in /usr/local/lib*, right? >> >> Install the libbpf to /usr/lib64 via `make install_lib prefix=/usr` doesn't have >> this issue, so shall I just document it in af_xdp.rst or there is other proper >> way to do it? >> >At a guess I'd say you are using Fedora Linux, right? Fedora is unusual in >that it doesn't by default add /usr/local to the library and header search >paths so you need to explicitly add them to your environment. Other distros >should work fine for this. I am using centos 7.4, I guess it has the same issue as Fedora you mentioned above. Thanks, Xiaolong > >/Bruce