From: "Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio" <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 00/13] Update build system
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 17:21:48 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <91383E96CE459D47BCE92EFBF5CE73B004F26FD1@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <16150803.N0UIx0csq3@xps13>
Hi Thomas,
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 4:52 PM
>
> Hi Sergio,
>
> 2015-01-12 16:33, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy:
> > This patch series updates the DPDK build system.
>
> Thanks for proposing such rework.
> We need discussions on that topic. So I ask some questions below.
>
> > Following are the goals it tries to accomplish:
> > - Create a library containing core DPDK libraries (librte_eal,
> > librte_malloc, librte_mempool, librte_mbuf and librte_ring).
> > The idea of core libraries is to group those libraries that are
> > always required for any DPDK application.
>
> How is it better? Is it only to reduce dependencies lines?
>
In my opinion I think that there are a set of libraries that are always required
and therefore should be grouped as a single one.
Basically all apps and other DPDK libs would have dependencies to these core libraries.
Aside from that, I don't think there is any difference. Note that this affects shared libraries,
with no difference for apps linked against static libs.
> > - Remove config option to build a combined library.
>
> Why removing combined library? Is there people finding it helpful?
>
I don't think it makes sense from a shared library point of view, maybe it does for static?
For example, in the case of shared libraries I think we want to try to avoid the case where
we have an app linked against librte_dpdk.so, but such library may contain different libraries
depending on the options that were enabled when the lib was built.
The core libraries would be that set of libraries that are always required for an app, and its content
would be fixed regardless of the option libraries (like acl, hash, distributor, etc.)
We could add more libraries as core if we think it is a better solution, but the goal should be that
librte_core.so contains the same libraries/API regardless of the system/arch.
> > - For shared libraries, explicitly link against dependant
> > libraries (adding entries to DT_NEEDED).
>
> OK, good.
>
> > - Update app linking flags against static/shared DPDK libs.
> >
> > Note that this patch turns up being quite big because of moving lib
> > directories to a new subdirectory.
> > I have ommited the actual diff from the patch doing the move of
> > librte_eal as it is quite big (6MB). Probably a different approach is
> preferred.
>
> Why do you think moving directories is needed?
>
Actually I am not sure is the best way to do this :) There is no need to move them, as the same result
could be achieved without moving directories, but I thought that it would be easier for anyone to see which
libraries are 'core' and which are not.
Not moving those directories would definitely simplify this patch series.
> Thanks
> --
> Thomas
Thanks,
Sergio
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-12 17:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-01-12 16:33 Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
2015-01-12 16:33 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 01/13] mk: Remove combined library and related options Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
2015-01-12 16:33 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 02/13] lib/core: create new core dir and makefiles Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
2015-01-12 16:33 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 03/13] core: move librte_eal to core subdir Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
2015-01-12 16:33 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 04/13] core: move librte_malloc " Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
2015-01-12 16:33 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 05/13] core: move librte_mempool " Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
2015-01-12 16:33 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 06/13] core: move librte_mbuf " Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
2015-01-12 16:34 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 07/13] core: move librte_ring " Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
2015-01-12 16:34 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 08/13] Update path of core libraries Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
2015-01-12 16:34 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 09/13] mk: new corelib makefile Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
2015-01-12 16:34 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 10/13] lib: Set LDLIBS for each library Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
2015-01-12 16:34 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 11/13] mk: Use LDLIBS when linking shared libraries Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
2015-01-12 16:34 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 12/13] mk: update apps build Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
2015-01-12 16:34 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 13/13] mk: add -lpthread to linuxapp EXECENV_LDLIBS Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
2015-01-12 16:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 00/13] Update build system Thomas Monjalon
2015-01-12 17:21 ` Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio [this message]
2015-01-12 18:16 ` Neil Horman
2015-01-22 10:03 ` Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio
2015-01-22 10:38 ` Thomas Monjalon
2015-01-22 11:01 ` Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio
2015-01-13 12:26 ` Neil Horman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=91383E96CE459D47BCE92EFBF5CE73B004F26FD1@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com \
--to=sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).