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 20265A046B for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 19:31:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 191451BF74; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 19:31:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A27B31BF57 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 19:31:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80A18507; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 13:31:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 22 Jul 2019 13:31:12 -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=Hl67rpBYKclyC0fhPf2eBeJXqsQ5FRKXoIlN0COTxIg=; b=ByeYlSR/T1qD fyJY2sm2ZZpIZAPGKPJDd4zAdhBPbGVM1nUGpKPMoWVrXCou9yN6l+9cttOsBFxq hpm9RrFu2Ank+H19F6TAX19hrtPeBC6GF7kY0e4ynHkivw1nyxX4i+KSFBZRa+L1 cACjNrqxZvxeNP4Voa7ZoejkNfVb79o= 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=Hl67rpBYKclyC0fhPf2eBeJXqsQ5FRKXoIlN0COTx Ig=; b=B9O4F71WCvfuwXXU0xLffHq+R6QVyxPl1Beef3mMNkeS3AvFVJIF2jn8j tcD3rXzE4UpUEt5JsI6EWGpsVORON3oM6y7a5NF33++XJQLCRQW0+9djGlMaLFsk iW/duZYaj41J5wqLIZTlsZKTzEM/mEJzVMB6kGuJumDVQ7a36CMzbau243s9i/xH EWd+27VbHTKAe9Uu+9LSpCgDp3tmPTuYXtkHK4d8q8Z47Ih5Rt5zj8Qn+adAayYD 9j0iMbZHfKGl9SYUxtAKV7NDyAfxat8m7O3AsgG83rnXQ0ihZdthRs9hvSsUtJYi S3X8Eu6+hNhQUl1Da0E9s3WB3djTA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduvddrjeeggdduudejucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecukf hppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhh ohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvthenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 3CE7B380087; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 13:31:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Stephen Hemminger Cc: Bruce Richardson , dev@dpdk.org Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 19:31:08 +0200 Message-ID: <4987111.cxvgFvst8F@xps> In-Reply-To: <20190722101316.33121639@xps13> References: <20190715234136.3526-1-stephen@networkplumber.org> <3107061.JzsCpgzbfO@xps> <20190722101316.33121639@xps13> 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" 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?