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 EF3E8A0A03; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 18:54:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6D20140DA0; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 18:54:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [216.205.24.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 682EF140D8F for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 18:54:56 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1610992495; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Cf/hUMmw9PRaiHfa6+sqKmSCUFEJgUW+Bzn/fUhxJps=; b=NDJWbABZzWtlJ0xZfbXuJKV1JbtiPFh2eREosPugY2Cn7Rh/0UOC0XGlTDR7QA2JmZlYS7 lUKILOPB520WCOXkVCJ68bTqKlYJBHYLXV3gphTXlkAFTp2NKm1UJDUYNOidHUdnoRWe8q jXwtgqQsp8mgiDsVKDQkQCglAPolPEQ= Received: from mail-vs1-f71.google.com (mail-vs1-f71.google.com [209.85.217.71]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-37-4f4fjcUFOiuWBox_kZFAKA-1; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 12:54:49 -0500 X-MC-Unique: 4f4fjcUFOiuWBox_kZFAKA-1 Received: by mail-vs1-f71.google.com with SMTP id y4so3275967vsl.22 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 09:54:49 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Cf/hUMmw9PRaiHfa6+sqKmSCUFEJgUW+Bzn/fUhxJps=; b=QL6BmoIhzthFmsaGYcoKissqK8ramlf59X9K8ksCnUFVSs4tH/9VdI0GpcpgsSW6sn LXE8pkIeezVfLMPNrQZ3792/JaQDVhwn2UWsZJ7MhdHtAgRZiiMzB3mAdcxe8Gvjm+pM xmJMkW5gQ9iE889w8iyAQ44EFy/sNeXyDlbpl3CI3aFkwqsHBqW1AUKJiI1AldQ7Sr76 QzhSK1o2/AIbENNc9ViNxqbuUOfLiPDWN91QaGz8XbH9sYEymf0sdKKMpSuIk4+q4DWV Njeq9wr1VAmEnn2EjaV9ye7Hqkyy7NVcJIDLM93OA665B6AX+QgaIYUFRskH48Yk61cI fkRQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532kYPdM9FDYEMClmHZy40K6oXaDAzPSISVzu7l6dAi+ySXXMrAS 2aT1IAp+l24z/stjwTaHLsMdv8gcnsVFra/iVmoSwBaTseNds0s9WVUcNeSAsY1dVLgzCkTJxZk EC/owEvJw/46OYyvat74= X-Received: by 2002:a67:3093:: with SMTP id w141mr672051vsw.27.1610992488924; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 09:54:48 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyaN+2j8IhNF5d7wwsZ9RKC9clsFuzf1P4PG69ju8B5/caqsF0lNxx0/4DzmpzwtXG08wruSYFdJgKP9RxIkqQ= X-Received: by 2002:a67:3093:: with SMTP id w141mr672031vsw.27.1610992488690; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 09:54:48 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <906fafb6-1ed5-7e0d-2357-913be8677fdd@intel.com> <6844897.6qp5l1ioRY@thomas> <3f58e10b-5201-8479-af54-6f5882c5aaa0@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <3f58e10b-5201-8479-af54-6f5882c5aaa0@intel.com> From: David Marchand Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 18:54:37 +0100 Message-ID: To: "Burakov, Anatoly" Cc: Thomas Monjalon , David Hunt , chris.macnamara@intel.com, dev , "Ananyev, Konstantin" , Timothy McDaniel , Bruce Richardson , Andrew Rybchenko , "Yigit, Ferruh" , Ajit Khaparde , Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=dmarchan@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v17 00/11] Add PMD power management 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" On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 6:02 PM Burakov, Anatoly wrote: > >>> SPDK build is still broken. > >>> http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/test-report/2021-January/174840.html > > [...] > >>> I guess this is because of the added dependency of rte_ethdev to rte_power. > >>> Afaics, SPDK does not use pkg-config: > >>> https://github.com/spdk/spdk/blob/master/lib/env_dpdk/env.mk#L53 > >> > >> Sooo... this is an SPDK issue then? Because i can't see any way of > >> fixing the issue on DPDK side. > > > > Yes SPDK should not skip pkg-config. > > But it raises 2 question: > > - are we breaking ABI compatibility? > > Good question. Does including an extra intra-DPDK dependency count as > ABI break? I was under impression that we didn't want DPDK to be > distributed as individual libraries but rather would like it to be used > as a whole, so if internal dependencies between components change, it's > not a big deal (unless a third-party build system is used that > explicitly specifies dependencies rather than using pkg-config). I don't get where an ABI breakage would be. What I reported is an issue with static link. For shared link, I would expect librte_power would expose its dependency on rte_ethdev via a DT_NEEDED entry. The final binary does not have to be aware of it. -- David Marchand