Re: [dpdk-dev] Can't compile DPDK if both CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_COMBINE_LIBS and LIBRTE_PMD_XENVIRT are set to "yes"

[Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@redhat.com>]

On 11/24/2015 04:46 PM, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy wrote:
> On 24/11/2015 13:57, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>> On 11/23/2015 08:37 PM, Martinx - ジェームズ wrote:
>>> Hello!
>>>
>>> My name is Thiago, I'm trying to compile DPDK 2.0, 2.1 and/or 2.2-rc1,
>>> on Ubuntu with Xen support but, it does not build...
>>>
>>> Also, initially, I'm using DPDK sources from Ubuntu APT repository
>>> but, it is also reproducible using upstream DPDK tarball as well,
>>> explained as follows:
>>>
>>> Problem:
>>>
>>> * It is not possible to use the following DPDK options at the same time:
>>>
>>> CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_COMBINE_LIBS
>>> LIBRTE_PMD_XENVIRT
>>>
>>> Ubuntu DPDK .deb package uses CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_COMBINE_LIBS and,
>>> without it, it can't build its .deb binary package (step: "make -f
>>> debian/rules binary" doesn't work).
>>>
>>> So, if you have the above two options set to "yes", the following
>>> error appear while building DPDK:
>>>
>>> http://pastebin.com/xUsQPxh8
>>>
>> [...]
>>> Build error:
>>>
>>> http://pastebin.com/fuUkpF4w
>>>
>>> If you remove "CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_COMBINE_LIBS", then, you can build it
>>> with "LIBRTE_PMD_XENVIRT", and vice-versa. But, without
>>> "...COMBINE_LIBS", Ubuntu .deb package doesn't get builded.
>>>
>>> BTW, the option LIBRTE_XEN_DOM0 is fine when also enabling
>>> COMBINE_LIBS...
>>>
>>> Am I missing something? Is this by design or a DPDK bug?
>>
>> DPDK bug I would say. The combined library has been increasingly in
>> risk of collapsing under its own weight for some time now.
>>
>> A much better way of achieving the same is using a so called linker
>> script which is essentially just an ascii file listing all the
>> individual libraries which the linker handles behind the scenes.
>> FWIW, that's how the combined library is packaged on Fedora and RHEL
>> and consumers like OVS and pktgen never knew the difference.
>>
>> The linker script approach has been suggested before but somehow the
>> threads died without nothing actually happening. I'll revive the patch
>> and post here shortly. Unless Sergio (cc'd) who previously worked on
>> the patches has a newer version cooking silently?
>>
> I haven't worked on it since,  so you probably are in a better position
> to continue the work than me.

Ok, I suspected as much but thanks for confirming. I'll continue the 
work as time permits.

	- Panu -