Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] pci: fix missing pci bus with shared library build

[Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>]

On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 19:31:08 +0200
Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:

> 22/07/2019 19:13, Stephen Hemminger:
> > Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:  
> > > Are the constructors run on dlopen of the bus driver?  
> > 
> > Yes, constructors are run on dlopen.
> > But application should not have to ask DPDK to dlopen the bus devices.
> > 
> > The core principle is that dynamic build of DPDK should act the same as old
> > statically linked DPDK. Otherwise, the user experience is even worse, and all
> > the example documentation is wrong.  
> 
> OK, this is where I wanted to bring the discussion.
> You are arguing against a design which is in DPDK from some early days.
> So this is an interesting discussion to have.
> Do we want to change the "plugin model" we have?
> Or do we want to simply drop this model (dlopen calls)
> and replace it with strong dynamic linking?

I argue that examples should work the same with dynamic linking.
This used to work before the break out of the bus model, so it is a bug.

For distributions, this also matters. Linking with -ldpdk which is a linker
script should work.