From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF81CA0A0C; Mon, 5 Jul 2021 10:41:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46EFE40141; Mon, 5 Jul 2021 10:41:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from shelob.oktetlabs.ru (shelob.oktetlabs.ru [91.220.146.113]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57DC74003C for ; Mon, 5 Jul 2021 10:41:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.38.17] (aros.oktetlabs.ru [192.168.38.17]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by shelob.oktetlabs.ru (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A3AED7F504; Mon, 5 Jul 2021 11:41:56 +0300 (MSK) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 shelob.oktetlabs.ru A3AED7F504 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=oktetlabs.ru; s=default; t=1625474516; bh=21nenp2NdHG++cHk/NL2y0A6uu7R/PPkZFkTwxUpwjM=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=cyjWIu/euLsBOGWs4JddjmjWpb9Z43yfckDtLfJDyQhjGqmKrfVZjdEuIcpXVq8Wf 0YAbg+VYWSO2lxrxgqyWufzEIPoOXxYxipeq1/Mi7JmTRUTV4mI+xoco6joZji1FzA d8HPM813Mtu5xfK5KaaksBQCuBl0/TpDC8makTfQ= To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: David Marchand , Bruce Richardson , dev , Igor Romanov , Andy Moreton , Ivan Malov References: <20210527152510.1551026-1-andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru> <10487590.FxHezTWy5a@thomas> <296e71af-1b8d-b306-dc2f-c476c7a44cce@oktetlabs.ru> <2072850.3CVXAm7o0J@thomas> From: Andrew Rybchenko Organization: OKTET Labs Message-ID: <5ca668f7-ee10-20e6-b209-d33b4d5a3566@oktetlabs.ru> Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2021 11:41:56 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2072850.3CVXAm7o0J@thomas> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 19/20] net/sfc: support flow action COUNT in transfer rules X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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 7/4/21 10:45 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 02/07/2021 14:53, Andrew Rybchenko: >> On 7/2/21 3:30 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >>> 02/07/2021 10:43, Andrew Rybchenko: >>>> On 7/1/21 4:05 PM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote: >>>>> On 7/1/21 3:34 PM, David Marchand wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 11:22 AM Andrew Rybchenko >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> The build works fine for me on FC34, but it has >>>>>>> libatomic-11.1.1-3.fc34.x86_64 installed. >>>>>> I first produced the issue on my "old" FC32. >>>>>> Afaics, for FC33 and later, gcc now depends on libatomic and the >>>>>> problem won't be noticed. >>>>>> FC32 and before are EOL, but I then reproduced the issue on RHEL 8 >>>>>> (and Intel CI reported it on Centos 8 too). >>>>> I see. Thanks for the clarification. >>>>> >>>>>>> I'd like to understand what we're trying to solve here. >>>>>>> Are we trying to make meson to report the missing library >>>>>>> correctly? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If so, I think I can do simple check using cc.links() >>>>>>> which will fail if the library is not found. I'll >>>>>>> test that it works as expected if the library is not >>>>>>> completely installed. >>>>>>> >>>>>> I tried below diff, and it works for me. >>>>>> "works" as in net/sfc gets disabled without libatomic installed: >>> [...] >>>>>> # for gcc compiles we need -latomic for 128-bit atomic ops >>>>>> if cc.get_id() == 'gcc' >>>>>> + code = '''#include >>>>>> + void main() { printf("Atomilink me.\n"); } >>>>>> + ''' >>>>>> + if not cc.links(code, args: '-latomic', name: 'libatomic link check') >>>>>> + build = false >>>>>> + reason = 'missing dependency, "libatomic"' >>>>>> + subdir_done() >>>>>> + endif >>>>>> ext_deps += cc.find_library('atomic') >>>>>> endif >>>>> Many thanks, LGTM. I'll pick it up and add comments why >>>>> it is checked this way. >>>>> >>>> I've send v4 with the problem fixed. However, I'm afraid >>>> build test systems should be updated to have libatomic >>>> correctly installed. Otherwise, they do not really check >>>> net/sfc build. >>> When testing on old systems, sfc won't be tested anymore after this patchset. >>> On recent systems, sfc should be enabled I guess. >>> I don't see how to manage better, sorry. >>> >> I see. I thought that it is possible to install missing >> package on corresponding systems to make build coverage >> better. >> >> Now I automatically test build on problematic distros >> with previously missing packages installed. So I have >> internal build coverage anyway. > David asked for installing libatomic: > https://inbox.dpdk.org/ci/CAJFAV8xCNBL4yEZU0c=dJGYS+13QM7Uz7e2qnUkMuM7eaKKw+Q@mail.gmail.com/ > > We should wait for it to be installed otherwise ABI check will fail. Yes, I see. Thanks.