From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 233225AC1 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 18:21:51 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 12 Jan 2015 09:21:50 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,744,1413270000"; d="scan'208";a="668545654" Received: from irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.28]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 12 Jan 2015 09:21:49 -0800 Received: from irsmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.71]) by irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.7.195]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 17:21:49 +0000 From: "Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio" To: Thomas Monjalon Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 00/13] Update build system Thread-Index: AQHQLoW0TkjRJqHabk2BE0EuYo1gOJy8sx2AgAADTmA= Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 17:21:48 +0000 Message-ID: <91383E96CE459D47BCE92EFBF5CE73B004F26FD1@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1421080446-19249-1-git-send-email-sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com> <16150803.N0UIx0csq3@xps13> In-Reply-To: <16150803.N0UIx0csq3@xps13> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.182] 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 00/13] Update 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: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 17:21:52 -0000 Hi Thomas, > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 4:52 PM >=20 > Hi Sergio, >=20 > 2015-01-12 16:33, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy: > > This patch series updates the DPDK build system. >=20 > Thanks for proposing such rework. > We need discussions on that topic. So I ask some questions below. >=20 > > Following are the goals it tries to accomplish: > > - Create a library containing core DPDK libraries (librte_eal, > > librte_malloc, librte_mempool, librte_mbuf and librte_ring). > > The idea of core libraries is to group those libraries that are > > always required for any DPDK application. >=20 > How is it better? Is it only to reduce dependencies lines? > In my opinion I think that there are a set of libraries that are always req= uired and therefore should be grouped as a single one. Basically all apps and other DPDK libs would have dependencies to these cor= e libraries. Aside from that, I don't think there is any difference. Note that this affe= cts shared libraries, with no difference for apps linked against static libs.=20 > > - Remove config option to build a combined library. >=20 > Why removing combined library? Is there people finding it helpful? >=20 I don't think it makes sense from a shared library point of view, maybe it = does for static? For example, in the case of shared libraries I think we want to try to avoi= d the case where we have an app linked against librte_dpdk.so, but such library may contain = different libraries depending on the options that were enabled when the lib was built. The core libraries would be that set of libraries that are always required = for an app, and its content would be fixed regardless of the option libraries (like acl, hash, distribu= tor, etc.) We could add more libraries as core if we think it is a better solution, bu= t the goal should be that librte_core.so contains the same libraries/API regardless of the system/arc= h. > > - For shared libraries, explicitly link against dependant > > libraries (adding entries to DT_NEEDED). >=20 > OK, good. >=20 > > - Update app linking flags against static/shared DPDK libs. > > > > Note that this patch turns up being quite big because of moving lib > > directories to a new subdirectory. > > I have ommited the actual diff from the patch doing the move of > > librte_eal as it is quite big (6MB). Probably a different approach is > preferred. >=20 > Why do you think moving directories is needed? >=20 Actually I am not sure is the best way to do this :) There is no need to mo= ve them, as the same result could be achieved without moving directories, but I thought that it would b= e easier for anyone to see which libraries are 'core' and which are not. Not moving those directories would definitely simplify this patch series. > Thanks > -- > Thomas Thanks, Sergio