From: "Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio" <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 00/13] Update build system
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 11:01:31 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <91383E96CE459D47BCE92EFBF5CE73B004F412E9@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2045513.NOD9qnQLhk@xps13>
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 10:39 AM
> To: Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 00/13] Update build system
>
> 2015-01-22 10:03, Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio:
> > > From: Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio
> > > Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 5:22 PM
> > > To: Thomas Monjalon
> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 00/13] Update build system
> > >
> > > 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
> >
> > Hi Thomas,
> >
> > Any other comments/suggestions ?
> > My main concern would be the patch needed to move librte_eal (around
> 6MB).
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> I think you shouldn't move the libs.
> Maybe we can link the core libs into one (not sure of the interest) but I think
> we shouldn't move them in a core/ subdir.
>
> On another side, I'd like to see KNI moving out of EAL.
>
> --
> Thomas
I think moving KNI out of EAL belongs to a different patch.
We can still link librte_core without moving the directories into core/
I'll work on it.
Thanks,
Sergio
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-22 11:01 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
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 [this message]
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=91383E96CE459D47BCE92EFBF5CE73B004F412E9@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com \
--to=sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=nhorman@tuxdriver.com \
--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).