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

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

22/07/2019 20:34, Stephen Hemminger:
> 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.

The PCI support was part of EAL, yes, but the device drivers
were plugins and already required the -d option.

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

There is no longer this linker script with meson.