Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/6] power: fix make build for power apps

["Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>]

On 13-Jan-21 11:14 AM, David Hunt wrote:
> Hi Anatoly,
> 
> On 13/1/2021 11:08 AM, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
>> On 08-Jan-21 2:30 PM, David Hunt wrote:
>>> The power example applications that uses the virtio-serial method of
>>> communication cannot currently be built with make, and can only be built
>>> using meson/ninja.
>>>
>>> The guest channel message definitions and functions in guest_channel.h
>>> are needed by applications and need to be made public.
>>>
>>> This worked pre-20.11, but now with all the meson/ninja changes, making
>>> these apps externally no longer works. To fix, we need to move the 
>>> header
>>> file with the API definitions for the channel commands public, and 
>>> rename
>>> the functions accordingly.
>>>
>>> The main change is to rename channel_commands.h to
>>> rte_power_guest_channel.h so that it gets picked up by the installer and
>>> copied to /usr/local/include. Other changes include renaming #defines to
>>> have RTE_ at the beginning instead of CPU_. Finally we refactor the code
>>> to work with those changes.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> v2 changes
>>>    - re-worked from monolithic patch to a 6 patch patchset for easier 
>>> review
>>>
>>> [PATCH v2 1/6] power: create guest channel public header file
>>> [PATCH v2 2/6] power: make channel msg functions public
>>> [PATCH v2 3/6] power: rename public structs
>>> [PATCH v2 4/6] power: rename defines
>>> [PATCH v2 5/6] power: add new header file to export list
>>> [PATCH v2 6/6] power: clean up includes
>>>
>>
>> Just a general question: wouldn't it be better to move this stuff 
>> entirely into sample app and not bother with keeping it in the 
>> library? There is precedent - ethtool app has a "library" and an 
>> "application" part, i think you should be able to move it out of the 
>> library and into the sample app entirely without too much trouble, as 
>> code looks to be fairly self-contained.
>>
> 
> Agreed, that's a great idea. I could have a common lib under 
> examples/vm_power_manager, then two apps, vm_power_manager and 
> guest_cli. That would keep everything nicely local, and not expose the 
> channel API publicly. The only reason we were making it public was to 
> allow "make" to work, so that's not a good enought reason, tbh. I'll 
> throw a prototype together today.

Yep, IIRC Make works perfectly fine with ethtool, so i don't see why it 
wouldn't work for your sample app as well. Thanks!

> 
> Thanks,
> Dave.
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Thanks,
Anatoly