From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C7E8A046B for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 20:35:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 333181C08E; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 20:35:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.21]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A70C81B9B5 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 20:35:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0A17543; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 14:35:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 23 Jul 2019 14:35:30 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=MqoWgV25e0KpFqfudcLfL1mIojkR67W2Q5cwHkPz64A=; b=YzsSwgw+zglf PYk1C6RIdhD0pwCRzIX8k2kY093Jp6sGsGnXFsuvsLlvTCaWv83OoA+dwCBO4jdR 8NYhD/ywD74ajIcJuh0cRfuVXVMvT0wQfkCRANMJGx+8JUBT57boJaAnYJJg211i J23f1z1DGAWJkfHfkjCSpMBd/dciOWA= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=MqoWgV25e0KpFqfudcLfL1mIojkR67W2Q5cwHkPz6 4A=; b=1ohNvikfF+lUEvM8uBwEYXvtIRJYzbjki6kVRVFQ0n1zPCz6tAnKg4j0r GW8icOGHwdmC1ZT+1c98qwjg+b8BAUujhLC6zc5FGzSAMfhsJcrS8a3WjMBxSif0 ca3I2ZJeO9AiXUdEmaJiOzIlCPAJsBlu7eXnIWN9R0b0BCw4MZ8mh6NBkRwknwm8 JUYfr2sabEI8/7lS6RlawGJJy+vigciPixnD2Etei0U4mIebMdXUEk76VmfkiXaB PqFhGSHH1CJBBWWTsmJO1c7V04Y2A3TuOeDX8RkKWHMhsVynCO/PbuF1gutHW48C SpxuVHpk8ZV0dsO2KPhDhbLBmPyFA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduvddrjeekgdduvdeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecukf hppeelfedrvdefrdduleekrdekleenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhm rghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvthenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (89.198.23.93.rev.sfr.net [93.23.198.89]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 489AC80064; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 14:35:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Stephen Hemminger Cc: Bruce Richardson , dev@dpdk.org Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 20:35:25 +0200 Message-ID: <16659921.iprpBmmhMi@xps> In-Reply-To: <20190723112922.52dcb9a9@hermes.lan> References: <20190715234136.3526-1-stephen@networkplumber.org> <7229382.2RzrNnEHBx@xps> <20190723112922.52dcb9a9@hermes.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] pci: fix missing pci bus with shared library build X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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" 23/07/2019 20:29, Stephen Hemminger: > On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 09:59:04 +0200 > Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 22/07/2019 20:34, Stephen Hemminger: > > > On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 19:31:08 +0200 > > > Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > > > 22/07/2019 19:13, Stephen Hemminger: > > > > > Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > > Are the constructors run on dlopen of the bus driver? > > > > > > > > > > Yes, constructors are run on dlopen. > > > > > But application should not have to ask DPDK to dlopen the bus devices. > > > > > > > > > > The core principle is that dynamic build of DPDK should act the same as old > > > > > statically linked DPDK. Otherwise, the user experience is even worse, and all > > > > > the example documentation is wrong. > > > > > > > > OK, this is where I wanted to bring the discussion. > > > > You are arguing against a design which is in DPDK from some early days. > > > > So this is an interesting discussion to have. > > > > Do we want to change the "plugin model" we have? > > > > Or do we want to simply drop this model (dlopen calls) > > > > and replace it with strong dynamic linking? > > > > > > I argue that examples should work the same with dynamic linking. > > > This used to work before the break out of the bus model, so it is a bug. > > > > The PCI support was part of EAL, yes, but the device drivers > > were plugins and already required the -d option. > > > > > For distributions, this also matters. Linking with -ldpdk which is a linker > > > script should work. > > > > There is no longer this linker script with meson. > > Ok, for usability that is a problem. > Requiring user to figure out which DPDK libraries to link with is a serious > waste of time. It should be possible to just link with -ldpdk and > distribution packages and just get the necessary libraries for the application > (no extra rte_foo_bar .so loaded at run time), and the application should > just work. > > The idea that the user should link with 20 shared libraries, in the right > order and pass -d flags to eal_init to load the right PMD is user hostile. > It only makes sense if you want to invent yet another layer to manage the > ugly stuff hidden underneath. Think virt-manager versus raw KVM/QEMU. > > I know it is hard, and I know not all this will make it into 19.08 > but let's try and do better. The DPDK already has a reputation as being > like a super car, (ie unreliable and hard to drive). It doesn't have to be that way. About the build-time link, it is already improved thanks to the pkgconfig file generated by meson. The only issue I understand is the runtime need for -d, which is a feature, and could be removed.