From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 579B9677B for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 11:36:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 31 Oct 2014 03:43:54 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,294,1413270000"; d="scan'208";a="628922296" Received: from irsmsx104.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.159]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 31 Oct 2014 03:45:41 -0700 Received: from irsmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.82]) by IRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.5.58]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:45:07 +0000 From: "Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio" To: Matthew Hall Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC] Update/Improve build system Thread-Index: Ac/y0Ygf71bGk8KHS4ikCUjA9ZJfwQBsYoQAABmRXLA= Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:45:07 +0000 Message-ID: <91383E96CE459D47BCE92EFBF5CE73B004E9AAFB@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <91383E96CE459D47BCE92EFBF5CE73B004E97FFB@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <20141030205000.GA9956@mhcomputing.net> In-Reply-To: <20141030205000.GA9956@mhcomputing.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.180] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC] Update/Improve build system X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:36:44 -0000 > From: Matthew Hall [mailto:mhall@mhcomputing.net] > Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 8:50 PM >=20 > On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 09:18:23AM +0000, Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio wrote: > > I would say that D) is a good balance, although not being the simplest. >=20 > A, or D. Depending on things such as, "If you run the DPDK on Random > Platform X," where X could be something like Power CPUs or other weird > stuff, will all of the things needed for the Combined Lib 1) be compilabl= e, 2) > be able to load w/o errors. >=20 > For example, I could see probe ctor functions from various PMD's blowing = up > on unsupported hardware. Like how the rte_pmd_virtio had issues when I > tried it on my VM system. >=20 IMHO the underlying issue was that virtio was unsupported for that platform= . What I am trying to say is that any app built against a combined shared lib= or combined/separated=20 static lib will have that same issue if the feature/PMD is unsupported for = the platform. In the virtio case, building against combined shared or combined/separated = static DPDK libs would have the same result because the virtio PMD would be in the app. > If we think we can make sure no platform specific stuff breaks when it en= ds > up in Combined Lib A then A is probably the easiest for all. >=20 I agree, a combined lib would simplify all app/lib linking, making it easie= r for the user and less error prone. One of the downsides that comes to mind is a flow work (I think you mention= ed it) where you have multiple apps building against a single DPDK copy, and each app uses d= ifferent features/PMDs. In that scenario, having separated libs would make your life easier as you = would not need to have multiple DPDK copies customized for each app, giving you the flexibility to= hand pick each lib you want to include into your app. That flow work still presents some issues as they may be features that are = incompatible between each other and would need to be in different DPDK copies. Regards, Sergio > Matthew.