From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-f181.google.com (mail-wi0-f181.google.com [209.85.212.181]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33A805934 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 11:39:22 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wi0-f181.google.com with SMTP id fb4so1724981wid.2 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 02:39:22 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization :user-agent:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:content-type; bh=P9wkBksg1KnYqx6VHpM7iMXaFHEyMrlSUJba6PV3N7Y=; b=RZxAlCQLejCIK3IKxo4Tiavh9UDoryYDVkJHX0b0qY/nw2VsCw1OPNWfQe3E9J8np+ 2Yetc3LpqUgBbXYlNfPmGToVTUo1Hs6YELQnPLU+hEr6ZzBqkeagvHOwgn+g234FM2II 8J3Ub+zpWHfNY1ZQhnYHXaNRk+QpqfA4jBWgR51XcrwXGb7M5ZUAUAxFOCcUiKiUYnHm wuZCcc/V2IybxaPHQhWZNkpuoziwpmZfXT5Tc8R7N7MalUd2Ry9cYJENNnceMnrP3GCK 45xytN1mPm1VdZ5J32c6e8DdliPuZgZDi75KPaL+jxwCN3UNNdYiYOwEB7X6CuEHhub9 lE4Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnNh1hJWG9VnNt513CdcpxqeR8YZQjEV5TnJVC9mbnYYChgta5p2oBkekregmN7Cf+8wlFM X-Received: by 10.181.27.199 with SMTP id ji7mr3865609wid.76.1421923161232; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 02:39:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from xps13.localnet (guy78-3-82-239-227-177.fbx.proxad.net. [82.239.227.177]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id g10sm2472086wic.7.2015.01.22.02.39.19 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 22 Jan 2015 02:39:20 -0800 (PST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio" Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 11:38:55 +0100 Message-ID: <2045513.NOD9qnQLhk@xps13> Organization: 6WIND User-Agent: KMail/4.14.3 (Linux/3.18.2-2-ARCH; KDE/4.14.3; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <91383E96CE459D47BCE92EFBF5CE73B004F412AF@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1421080446-19249-1-git-send-email-sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com> <91383E96CE459D47BCE92EFBF5CE73B004F26FD1@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <91383E96CE459D47BCE92EFBF5CE73B004F412AF@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 00/13] Update build system X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 10:39:22 -0000 2015-01-22 10:03, Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio: > > From: Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio > > Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 5:22 PM > > To: Thomas Monjalon > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 00/13] Update build system > > > > Hi Thomas, > > > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > > > Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 4:52 PM > > > > > > Hi Sergio, > > > > > > 2015-01-12 16:33, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy: > > > > This patch series updates the DPDK build system. > > > > > > Thanks for proposing such rework. > > > We need discussions on that topic. So I ask some questions below. > > > > > > > Following are the goals it tries to accomplish: > > > > - Create a library containing core DPDK libraries (librte_eal, > > > > librte_malloc, librte_mempool, librte_mbuf and librte_ring). > > > > The idea of core libraries is to group those libraries that are > > > > always required for any DPDK application. > > > > > > How is it better? Is it only to reduce dependencies lines? > > > > > In my opinion I think that there are a set of libraries that are always required > > and therefore should be grouped as a single one. > > Basically all apps and other DPDK libs would have dependencies to these core > > libraries. > > > > Aside from that, I don't think there is any difference. Note that this affects > > shared libraries, with no difference for apps linked against static libs. > > > > > > - Remove config option to build a combined library. > > > > > > Why removing combined library? Is there people finding it helpful? > > > > > I don't think it makes sense from a shared library point of view, maybe it > > does for static? > > For example, in the case of shared libraries I think we want to try to avoid the > > case where we have an app linked against librte_dpdk.so, but such library > > may contain different libraries depending on the options that were enabled > > when the lib was built. > > > > The core libraries would be that set of libraries that are always required for > > an app, and its content would be fixed regardless of the option libraries (like > > acl, hash, distributor, etc.) We could add more libraries as core if we think it is > > a better solution, but the goal should be that librte_core.so contains the > > same libraries/API regardless of the system/arch. > > > > > > - For shared libraries, explicitly link against dependant > > > > libraries (adding entries to DT_NEEDED). > > > > > > OK, good. > > > > > > > - Update app linking flags against static/shared DPDK libs. > > > > > > > > Note that this patch turns up being quite big because of moving lib > > > > directories to a new subdirectory. > > > > I have ommited the actual diff from the patch doing the move of > > > > librte_eal as it is quite big (6MB). Probably a different approach > > > > is > > > preferred. > > > > > > Why do you think moving directories is needed? > > > > > Actually I am not sure is the best way to do this :) There is no need to move > > them, as the same result could be achieved without moving directories, but I > > thought that it would be easier for anyone to see which libraries are 'core' > > and which are not. > > > > Not moving those directories would definitely simplify this patch series. > > > > > Thanks > > > -- > > > Thomas > > > > Thanks, > > Sergio > > Hi Thomas, > > Any other comments/suggestions ? > My main concern would be the patch needed to move librte_eal (around 6MB). > > Thoughts? I think you shouldn't move the libs. Maybe we can link the core libs into one (not sure of the interest) but I think we shouldn't move them in a core/ subdir. On another side, I'd like to see KNI moving out of EAL. -- Thomas