Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: change init macro as exec environment specific

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

01/03/2019 18:05, Ferruh Yigit:
> On 10/11/2017 3:33 PM, jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com (Jerin Jacob) wrote:
> > From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>
> >> 07/08/2017 14:04, Jerin Jacob:
> >>> baremetal execution environments may have a different
> >>> method to enable RTE_INIT instead of using compiler
> >>> constructor scheme. Move RTE_INIT* definition under
> >>> exec-env to support different execution environments.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>  app/test-eventdev/evt_test.h                       |  2 +-
> >>>  lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/eal/Makefile                 |  2 +-
> >>>  .../bsdapp/eal/include/exec-env/rte_eal.h          | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>  lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_log.c             |  2 +
> >>>  lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_bus.h            |  2 +
> >>>  lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_eal.h            |  6 ---
> >>>  lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_tailq.h          |  2 +
> >>>  lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/Makefile               |  2 +-
> >>>  .../linuxapp/eal/include/exec-env/rte_eal.h        | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>  9 files changed, 111 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >>>  create mode 100644 lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/eal/include/exec-env/rte_eal.h
> >>>  create mode 100644 lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/include/exec-env/rte_eal.h
> >>
> >> I am not a big fan of duplicating code for Linux and BSD.
> >>
> >> Maybe we should have different splits and include a common file
> >> in Linux and BSD?
> > 
> > OK. This is doable.
> > 
> >>
> >> I feel it would be easier to think about the split when adding
> >> a new environment.
> >> It is also an open question whether we want to support (again) some
> >> bare metal environments.
> > 
> > IMO, A factor could be, how much we are OK to change?
> > 
> > Our internal prototype implementation for a bare metal environment
> > shows things are already in place and may need minor changes like this to
> > accommodate a bare metal execution environment(accounting the latest
> > changes of moving pci to driver/pci/..)
> > 
> > If no one care about need for such abstraction then we could drop this
> > patch. We can always keep local copy of such patches in our internal
> > tree. I thought to upstream it as it may be useful for someone else and
> > it is easy for us maintain if changes are in
> > lib/librte_eal/<new environment>/eal/ and drivers/*/
>  Hi Jerin, Thomas,
> 
> This is an old patch, the abstraction seems good idea but it comes with a
> duplication.
> 
> Is there an intention to continue the work? Are we waiting for any decision?
> Any objection to mark it as rejected?

I am not sure there is a real desire to make DPDK
ready for bare-metal (back again).
If any of you are aware of a real use-case, we can re-consider.