From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <thiagocmartinsc@gmail.com> Received: from mail-wm0-f41.google.com (mail-wm0-f41.google.com [74.125.82.41]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0637A8DA7 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 01:26:51 +0100 (CET) Received: by wmuu63 with SMTP id u63so118083570wmu.0 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:26:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tT4y+pzSJ4Zm/Tx/CnHWZhemn5Ug+L196qSC4qtrAVY=; b=hpJuhUTIY9gbZSK+s62vb/Nu+NMeMfsFuyKc1tx1Dv3538nNRryNtb07RyRJdPOoEW 8PxM7dpDdwr8WitaeBRWBKkOFTF/rc9kbv/MNQ1OzPC+bt4fZEWS0TgGcXwlZyUMrRka IhnGIWPOHKkBd5UKUADTMYqe/zopQKkB9/Do5eK4DFMt6wZ2S6qhew56nVJ1rn0f6CF5 OtR1naoOIRdM9syW4p2uzw+217A7Nv62JJ1nq8Y9uO3dv8brZL5bvo5bQMCcC0r7wRy6 SogIUFMqLL0/7IvaPfVP4cX6z3XkOexPy//v4bFloNm3oU1dWen9+ZCOxF7DyzLlYvZ+ 5RUA== X-Received: by 10.194.21.170 with SMTP id w10mr46230071wje.29.1448411210878; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:26:50 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.28.165.138 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:26:21 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <565487DF.7060802@redhat.com> References: <CAJSM8J2D_trMfzeSJAcuYD4sf-6GqdfhF-FdMOYV=0NFSGa0kQ@mail.gmail.com> <56546CAE.8050401@redhat.com> <56547837.5080803@intel.com> <565480BD.7060305@redhat.com> <CAJSM8J0Pc2CqoEahVw0ia6xhzZ5==O=qC=yWxscHhrz6xnzoZA@mail.gmail.com> <565487DF.7060802@redhat.com> From: =?UTF-8?B?TWFydGlueCAtIOOCuOOCp+ODvOODoOOCug==?= <thiagocmartinsc@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 22:26:21 -0200 Message-ID: <CAJSM8J2CXOfiamVK5-uvdPnO-sL0LsHsOMqMi1qr=MxbaTKpFw@mail.gmail.com> To: Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Can't compile DPDK if both CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_COMBINE_LIBS and LIBRTE_PMD_XENVIRT are set to "yes" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/> List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 00:26:51 -0000 On 24 November 2015 at 13:53, Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@redhat.com> wrote: > On 11/24/2015 05:30 PM, Martinx - =E3=82=B8=E3=82=A7=E3=83=BC=E3=83=A0=E3= =82=BA wrote: >> >> On 24 November 2015 at 13:22, Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@redhat.com> wrot= e: >>> >>> On 11/24/2015 04:46 PM, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 24/11/2015 13:57, Panu Matilainen wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 11/23/2015 08:37 PM, Martinx - =E3=82=B8=E3=82=A7=E3=83=BC=E3=83= =A0=E3=82=BA wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hello! >>>>>> >>>>>> My name is Thiago, I'm trying to compile DPDK 2.0, 2.1 and/or 2.2-rc= 1, >>>>>> on Ubuntu with Xen support but, it does not build... >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, initially, I'm using DPDK sources from Ubuntu APT repository >>>>>> but, it is also reproducible using upstream DPDK tarball as well, >>>>>> explained as follows: >>>>>> >>>>>> Problem: >>>>>> >>>>>> * It is not possible to use the following DPDK options at the same >>>>>> time: >>>>>> >>>>>> CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_COMBINE_LIBS >>>>>> LIBRTE_PMD_XENVIRT >>>>>> >>>>>> Ubuntu DPDK .deb package uses CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_COMBINE_LIBS and, >>>>>> without it, it can't build its .deb binary package (step: "make -f >>>>>> debian/rules binary" doesn't work). >>>>>> >>>>>> So, if you have the above two options set to "yes", the following >>>>>> error appear while building DPDK: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://pastebin.com/xUsQPxh8 >>>>>> >>>>> [...] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Build error: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://pastebin.com/fuUkpF4w >>>>>> >>>>>> If you remove "CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_COMBINE_LIBS", then, you can build i= t >>>>>> with "LIBRTE_PMD_XENVIRT", and vice-versa. But, without >>>>>> "...COMBINE_LIBS", Ubuntu .deb package doesn't get builded. >>>>>> >>>>>> BTW, the option LIBRTE_XEN_DOM0 is fine when also enabling >>>>>> COMBINE_LIBS... >>>>>> >>>>>> Am I missing something? Is this by design or a DPDK bug? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> DPDK bug I would say. The combined library has been increasingly in >>>>> risk of collapsing under its own weight for some time now. >>>>> >>>>> A much better way of achieving the same is using a so called linker >>>>> script which is essentially just an ascii file listing all the >>>>> individual libraries which the linker handles behind the scenes. >>>>> FWIW, that's how the combined library is packaged on Fedora and RHEL >>>>> and consumers like OVS and pktgen never knew the difference. >>>>> >>>>> The linker script approach has been suggested before but somehow the >>>>> threads died without nothing actually happening. I'll revive the patc= h >>>>> and post here shortly. Unless Sergio (cc'd) who previously worked on >>>>> the patches has a newer version cooking silently? >>>>> >>>> I haven't worked on it since, so you probably are in a better positio= n >>>> to continue the work than me. >>> >>> >>> >>> Ok, I suspected as much but thanks for confirming. I'll continue the wo= rk >>> as >>> time permits. >>> >>> - Panu - >>> >> >> Cool! Thank you guys for this fast reply... >> >> Just a curiosity, do you guys think that this will be ready for 2.2? >> Or maybe just for 2.3? >> >> I'm hoping to use this for next Ubuntu release, Xenial on 2016, April >> (Ubuntu 16.04 LTS). >> >> So, I think that there is time, if not too much trouble for you guys >> (honestly, I don't know how hard is to fix that)... :-) > > > Feel free to try this out: http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/9088/ > > Whether it lands in time for 2.2 I dont know. However there's absolutely = no > need to be held hostage by that patch, you can just disable the combined > library build option and drop a linker script in its place, created by ha= nd > or with couple of lines of shell script, eg: > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/dpdk.git/tree/dpdk.spec#n234 > > - Panu - > Helo Panu, This is getting interesting... Your patch worked (on top of dpdk-2.2.0-rc1) but, now, it broke Ubuntu / Debian packaging, because your patch adds a new file called "mk/rte.combinedlib.mk" but it also, removes the file "mk/rte.sharelib.mk", which Ubuntu is using to enable "LIB ABI Version" on DPDK. I'm talking about the following Ubuntu Patch (very simple and small): --- tmartins@xenial-1:~/dpdk/ubuntu/dpdk-2.0.0$ cat debian/patches/ubuntu-combined-shared-lib-abiversion.patch http://pastebin.com/VhpMF5U1 --- So, with your patch, I can now compile DPDK while using both options (_COMBINE_LIBS and _XENVIRT) at the same time but, unfortunately, Ubuntu packaging is now broken... Yes, I know that you guys have nothing to do with that but, I think that it would be GREAT if DPDK comes with "Lib ABI Version" by default... So, is it possible to, somehow, include "LIBABIVER" on your new "mk/rte.combinedlib.mk" file? Then, Ubuntu / Debian will not need to patch DPDK anymore, during build/packaging process... I really don't mind if DPDK team (or you Panu) just ignore this request, I know you guys are very busy, no problem... =3D) Nevertheless, I'll also try your suggestion, to use something like this: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/dpdk.git/tree/dpdk.spec#n234 ...to see if it behaves differently, and of course, to see if it builds the Debian package in the end of the day. Thanks again! Thiago