From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8367A0C47; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 09:04:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8EE340150; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 09:04:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0552C40142 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 09:04:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A98C15C01CF; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 03:04:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 12 Oct 2021 03:04:55 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm2; bh= LfsPjNql/Tf8ZJglWrjsNEVSQedSQv/7mJeDsfVrVus=; b=tqClJg45uFCTpYrq mLIoDTB3Z8IFPf7TTv2dwDdD5lxNrN/SCjxedm6j0gtV4Nf13dB/BSAz97jggcQh ucx6HaQzjfbTgxzMHVEjmZSJUr583ojFlHLE3+SXlOV78Y1SSd2vWXongy7QZG4o CdwpEWSIkuTjQrDreRf3h943UNYDiZmXwT+3eakilqfU8xW2nA0vEdZssr2/dvYN ymufhYv0b+1qupwcO9JTZxw3sjpi09Npkgz6yD9slqC0ejAAIakQ/rb2WWTYpvVb v50qXEmdTsyL0/Rc6ctWn6crqaD/NxhVnPYb3N/lTDszpYKMSMdhyfhm+fsAbOMe kwkzjA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=LfsPjNql/Tf8ZJglWrjsNEVSQedSQv/7mJeDsfVrV us=; b=PLT8Xijm/2JCtO8Dfm0dyRb8S6J8mVdsrlLwwtodkDs8aPpkyLGG/WmRp o4WUBiPuvG+R1mnb9ytzEIAa9XPjdqvPm7E3WmCEyfZlS643pOLFFlk+Gg0oodTe OzKpWs0FR/a0yFYiNgKbaTDS+dr70VARG4KK39pSClyMffQITCejOYaQHhqpq4vC Caw9u1dkO1kAxyj9Tu5F4ovVv1CmX1VNxzCr4XoV3xg9f9/zuMs5JoZkIVbYSzaL ShDp87HSZzjGkp0n0ORrsftSsN6Emz6S0gU03QQ7IADcCN21tbsTG+i3Pkk6h07B pyYCNvp6/hAVSaBaQmgs77JR5Xrwg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvtddrvddtjedgudduvdcutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthhqredttddtjeenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhm rghsucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenuc ggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeekteehtdeivefhieegjeelgedufeejheekkeetueevieeuvdev uedtjeevheevteenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfh hrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 03:04:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Liu, Changpeng" , "Xia, Chenbo" , "Harris, James R" Cc: David Marchand , "dev@dpdk.org" , Aaron Conole , "Zawadzki, Tomasz" Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 09:04:51 +0200 Message-ID: <2493119.E4WuaiPJut@thomas> In-Reply-To: <97904C86-DB0D-4237-B6D0-373E4C612695@intel.com> References: <20210910022402.26620-1-chenbo.xia@intel.com> <4923788.u9mvHzJ4CB@thomas> <97904C86-DB0D-4237-B6D0-373E4C612695@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/7] Removal of PCI bus ABIs X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 12/10/2021 02:35, Harris, James R: > =EF=BB=BFOn 10/11/21, 5:55 AM, "Thomas Monjalon" wr= ote: >=20 > 11/10/2021 08:58, Xia, Chenbo: > > From: Liu, Changpeng > > > Another issue raised by Jim Harris is that for distro packaged DP= DK, since > > > this option isn't enabled by default, this will not allow SPDK > > > to use the distro packaged DPDK after this release. > >=20 > > I think for this problem, we have two options: enable driver sdk by= default or > > let OSV configure the option when building distros. I'm fine with e= ither option. >=20 > The meson option enable_driver_sdk is described as "Install headers t= o build drivers." > Standard development packages should provide headers to build an appl= ication. > This option is for projects extending DPDK drivers out of the tree. > The preferred option is to develop drivers inside DPDK. >=20 > If a project needs the special option enable_driver_sdk, > 1/ it is not following the recommended approach, > 2/ it has to manage the burden of driver compatibility with DPDK, > 3/ it can compile DPDK itself. >=20 > So I think we neither need to make it a default, nor force distros to= enable it. > Am I missing something? >=20 > Hi Thomas, >=20 > This preference to develop PCI drivers inside of DPDK seems to be a very = recent preference. enable_driver_sdk was just added in DPDK 21.05, and for= building out-of-tree ethdev drivers. But DPDK has always enabled building = out-of-tree PCI drivers with its default build configuration - SPDK has rel= ied on these APIs since its inception. Yes DPDK allows out-of-tree drivers, but it has never been recommended. We have introduced enable_driver_sdk option recently to keep allowing out-o= f-tree drivers. > We have always viewed DPDK as being a very useful toolkit for building us= erspace drivers (especially storage drivers!) that aren't part of DPDK itse= lf. We hope that continues to be the case. Yes, there is no plan to stop that, but also no plan to make it easier. > All of that being said, SPDK already compiles DPDK itself as the default = configuration. We maintain a DPDK fork for patches that have not yet hit DP= DK upstream. If this gets merged we can document that users building DPDK t= hemselves must set enable_driver_sdk. We can also document to our users tha= t SPDK may not build against distro DPDK packages, once distros pick up the= se changes. Yes I think that's the right thing to do. Note: I don't remember the reason to keep your drivers out of DPDK?