From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C6ECA0096 for ; Sun, 17 Mar 2019 04:38:15 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC5C22BF4; Sun, 17 Mar 2019 04:38:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5BA8152A for ; Sun, 17 Mar 2019 04:38:12 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: UNKNOWN X-Amp-Original-Verdict: FILE UNKNOWN X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by fmsmga105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 16 Mar 2019 20:38:11 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.58,488,1544515200"; d="scan'208";a="142684677" Received: from yexl-server.sh.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.67.110.206]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 16 Mar 2019 20:38:10 -0700 Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 11:34:25 +0800 From: Ye Xiaolong To: Luca Boccassi Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Qi Zhang Message-ID: <20190317033425.GA103486@intel.com> References: <20190301080947.91086-1-xiaolong.ye@intel.com> <20190301080947.91086-2-xiaolong.ye@intel.com> <20190302081407.GD100586@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190302081407.GD100586@intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 1/6] net/af_xdp: introduce AF_XDP PMD driver 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" Message-ID: <20190317033425.J1J6AZ2-eDULeaqRftM6hlTbVm8n4S1kQVJLgHqMaeQ@z> On 03/02, Ye Xiaolong wrote: >>> _LDLIBS-$(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_PMD_AF_PACKET) += -lrte_pmd_af_packet >>> +_LDLIBS-$(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_PMD_AF_XDP) += -lrte_pmd_af_xdp >>> -lelf -lbpf >> >>Are symbols from libelf being used by the PMD? > >Hmm, it is a leftover of RFC, libelf is no longer needed in this version, will >remove it in next version. > Correction, libelf is needed for libbpf, so we still need to keep it. Thanks, Xiaolong >Thanks, >Xiaolong >> >>> _LDLIBS-$(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_ARK_PMD) += -lrte_pmd_ark >>> _LDLIBS-$(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_ATLANTIC_PMD) += -lrte_pmd_atlantic >>> _LDLIBS-$(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_AVF_PMD) += -lrte_pmd_avf >> >>-- >>Kind regards, >>Luca Boccassi