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 AB3CAA034F; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 14:55:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7580640150; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 14:55:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F347A40142 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 14:55:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A52165C00D7; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 08:55:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 11 Oct 2021 08:55:24 -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= nMpNrN+++yyJswMzgRkNd9yM5lGzp+0QUbAH2bB9T58=; b=NmNpsDG9QMlRBSrW aBDPQLwZeJTRiZw4gm38JguQlZMSRjsGPREWS5ttnyGgi7sIdwuwnPQ0CDA2t3Oa 0OLHjgcQN9NOAJpH5cDa+4kS5ArDKMWEnSJgXMT3nRFQPhxNnV0ixeTN+fHu9iVw 4+DhUxLQgJ1VL1jVVATrJDr5uPmrrGW+jpUm3hgn1j4w690qDnGbqeB6Dwa9FjEe K87BrVNrwuyFFIfJzpqZ7thA6u/HOuyCI4yu1Q3mefYbcyptfPzgH5oJ/JqkhGmB Gdk91nyszvEMvS/F9yMRyAZmRiSA2O9zspVzNQrQ2WBsu6AAmWzXrEbel6+Oyyjp Y0PgNQ== 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=nMpNrN+++yyJswMzgRkNd9yM5lGzp+0QUbAH2bB9T 58=; b=T0+mfJtFAgEWDRWbYhY2yChuSDGg9GHd5igG13NTqusfWQjFwIgJDBD1h g8zLc5NFGaqqmMG0ituIycpdKU2Yz7C5RRM7WPDW6Jwkubgk5JI5CKRobk+YraVG 62BHGSxZDmCqFnsjJsGJ00z1ipLIK/04LZiFmBbYND+7UEJJwhMOQqq3djPiQqFT QYKAIJQI8tjrvonF1cYjSryl6WfdGmY16JtZ5fZOt/XJJg8SBvTaxvzLQ9yOY5a/ 1IFOuv/sKurn4/NnoiG4l06B+zjmKiDL/vRFPasCH3xDmw8rftAXIliJZn2sS4+e KmeF6ZTVJHXwPU4neVSM7sTr9d1SA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvtddrvddtiedgheegucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepudeggfdvfeduffdtfeeglefghfeukefgfffhueejtdetuedtjeeu ieeivdffgeehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrh homhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 08:55:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Liu, Changpeng" , "Harris, James R" , "Xia, Chenbo" Cc: David Marchand , dev@dpdk.org, Aaron Conole , "Zawadzki, Tomasz" Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2021 14:55:20 +0200 Message-ID: <4923788.u9mvHzJ4CB@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20210910022402.26620-1-chenbo.xia@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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" 11/10/2021 08:58, Xia, Chenbo: > From: Liu, Changpeng > > Another issue raised by Jim Harris is that for distro packaged DPDK, since > > this option isn't enabled by default, this will not allow SPDK > > to use the distro packaged DPDK after this release. > > 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 either option. The meson option enable_driver_sdk is described as "Install headers to build drivers." Standard development packages should provide headers to build an application. This option is for projects extending DPDK drivers out of the tree. The preferred option is to develop drivers inside DPDK. 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. So I think we neither need to make it a default, nor force distros to enable it. Am I missing something?