Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] eal/linux: move plugin load to very start of eal init

[Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>]

On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 03:56:38PM +0100, David Marchand wrote:
> Loading shared libraries should be done at the very start of eal init so that
> the code statically built in dpdk and the code loaded from shared objects is
> handled (almost) the same way wrt to call to rte_eal_init().
> The only thing that must be done before is filling the solib_list which is done
> by eal_parse_args().
> 
> Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.marchand@6wind.com>
> ---
>  lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal.c |   14 +++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal.c b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal.c
> index 16f9e7c..c1c103d 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal.c
> @@ -725,6 +725,13 @@ rte_eal_init(int argc, char **argv)
>  	if (fctret < 0)
>  		exit(1);
>  
> +	TAILQ_FOREACH(solib, &solib_list, next) {
> +		RTE_LOG(INFO, EAL, "open shared lib %s\n", solib->name);
> +		solib->lib_handle = dlopen(solib->name, RTLD_NOW);
> +		if (solib->lib_handle == NULL)
> +			RTE_LOG(WARNING, EAL, "%s\n", dlerror());
> +	}
> +
>  	/* set log level as early as possible */
>  	rte_set_log_level(internal_config.log_level);
>  
> @@ -797,13 +804,6 @@ rte_eal_init(int argc, char **argv)
>  
>  	rte_eal_mcfg_complete();
>  
> -	TAILQ_FOREACH(solib, &solib_list, next) {
> -		RTE_LOG(INFO, EAL, "open shared lib %s\n", solib->name);
> -		solib->lib_handle = dlopen(solib->name, RTLD_NOW);
> -		if (solib->lib_handle == NULL)
> -			RTE_LOG(WARNING, EAL, "%s\n", dlerror());
> -	}
> -
>  	eal_thread_init_master(rte_config.master_lcore);
>  
>  	ret = eal_thread_dump_affinity(cpuset, RTE_CPU_AFFINITY_STR_LEN);
> -- 
> 1.7.10.4
> 
> 

I don't see anything explicitly wrong with this, but at the same time it doesn't
seem to fix anything.  Is there a particular bug that you're fixing in relation
to your cover letter here?  Or is there some expectation that PMD's loaded in
this fashion expect the dpdk to be completely uninitalized?  That would seem
like a strange operational requirement to me.

Neil