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 3C25BA04C8; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 15:58:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B24B81DA38; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 15:57:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6FEE1DA18 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 15:57:57 +0200 (CEST) IronPort-SDR: wPuuBMedA7x15t1ABSaRQfE8a19pq+6CNQXA1Mqk5ybUDlr2o3fkS85bIojCzG+bfYaiv9PqKo XwOCp1XAUcwg== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9747"; a="157326347" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,274,1596524400"; d="scan'208";a="157326347" X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga006.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.20]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 18 Sep 2020 06:57:56 -0700 IronPort-SDR: BZI9kQ6M1hh5fEKjcAw5MkHfSAR4SlJo7po/UbRrhAtrpJP1HlpWN3z+U5BivhjFQG75qFutsr BYyau7+dSzfQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,274,1596524400"; d="scan'208";a="508154797" Received: from bricha3-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.249.147.177]) by fmsmga006-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 18 Sep 2020 06:57:55 -0700 Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 14:57:50 +0100 From: Bruce Richardson To: Mohammed Hawari Cc: dev@dpdk.org Message-ID: <20200918135750.GA1592@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <20200918084924.31784-1-mohammed@hawari.fr> <20200918084924.31784-2-mohammed@hawari.fr> <20200918114329.GA1589@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> <33FE1BDE-C31E-4879-836B-DA22C850B829@hawari.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <33FE1BDE-C31E-4879-836B-DA22C850B829@hawari.fr> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/1] build: allow disabling libs 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" On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 02:54:21PM +0200, Mohammed Hawari wrote: > Hello Bruce, > > Thanks for the quick response, see inline > > Best regards, > > Mohammed > > > On 18 Sep 2020, at 13:43, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 10:49:23AM +0200, Mohammed Hawari wrote: > >> Similarly to the disable_drivers option, the disable_libs option is > >> introduced. This allows to selectively disable the build of elements > >> in libs to speed-up the build process. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Mohammed Hawari > >> --- > > > > While I don't particularly like allowing libs to be enabled and disabled > > since it complicates the build, I can see why it's necessary. This is an > > area that does need some discussion, as I believe others have some opinions > > in this area too. > > > > However, for now, some additional thoughts, both on this patch and in > > general: > > > > 1. I see you included disabling apps if their required libs are not > > available. What about the drivers though? > To my understanding, in the current code, the drivers/meson.build file already > does that check with: > > foreach d:deps > if not is_variable('shared_rte_' + d) > build = false > Yes, my mistake, I forgot that that was added as one driver could depend upon another. :-( > > 2. A bigger issue is whether this is really what we want to do, guarantee a > > passing build even if vast chunks of DPDK are actually enabled? I'd tend > > towards "no" in this case, and I'd rather see disabling of libs more > > constrained. > > 3. To this end, I think I'd rather see us maintain a set of libs which are > > allowed to be disabled, and prevent the rest from being so. For example, > > it makes no sense in DPDK to disable the EAL or mempool libs, since nothing > > will build, while the bitrate_stats or latency_stats libs could likely > > be disabled with little or no impact. > I tend to agree with that more structured approach, but I am going to wait until > we get some more thoughts from the community before starting that work. > That seems a wise approach. If there is no consensus after a while here, it probably needs to go to the technical board.