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 7FDA65424 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 11:03:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 22 Jan 2015 01:59:03 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,448,1418112000"; d="scan'208";a="640907703" Received: from irsmsx152.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.192.66]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 22 Jan 2015 02:03:04 -0800 Received: from irsmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.64]) by IRSMSX152.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.6.43]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 10:03:02 +0000 From: "Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio" To: Thomas Monjalon Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 00/13] Update build system Thread-Index: AQHQLoW0TkjRJqHabk2BE0EuYo1gOJy8sx2AgAADTmCAD0Do0A== Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 10:03:01 +0000 Message-ID: <91383E96CE459D47BCE92EFBF5CE73B004F412AF@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1421080446-19249-1-git-send-email-sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com> <16150803.N0UIx0csq3@xps13> <91383E96CE459D47BCE92EFBF5CE73B004F26FD1@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <91383E96CE459D47BCE92EFBF5CE73B004F26FD1@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> 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: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 10:03:07 -0000 > From: Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio > Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 5:22 PM > To: Thomas Monjalon > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 00/13] Update build system >=20 > Hi Thomas, >=20 > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > > Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 4:52 PM > > > > Hi Sergio, > > > > 2015-01-12 16:33, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy: > > > This patch series updates the DPDK build system. > > > > Thanks for proposing such rework. > > We need discussions on that topic. So I ask some questions below. > > > > > 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. > > > > 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 r= equired > and therefore should be grouped as a single one. > Basically all apps and other DPDK libs would have dependencies to these c= ore > libraries. >=20 > Aside from that, I don't think there is any difference. Note that this af= fects > shared libraries, with no difference for apps linked against static libs. >=20 > > > - Remove config option to build a combined library. > > > > Why removing combined library? Is there people finding it helpful? > > > I don't think it makes sense from a shared library point of view, maybe i= t > does for static? > For example, in the case of shared libraries I think we want to try to av= oid 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 enable= d > when the lib was built. >=20 > The core libraries would be that set of libraries that are always require= d for > an app, and its content would be fixed regardless of the option libraries= (like > acl, hash, distributor, etc.) We could add more libraries as core if we t= hink it is > a better solution, but the goal should be that librte_core.so contains th= e > same libraries/API regardless of the system/arch. >=20 > > > - For shared libraries, explicitly link against dependant > > > libraries (adding entries to DT_NEEDED). > > > > OK, good. > > > > > - 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. > > > > Why do you think moving directories is needed? > > > Actually I am not sure is the best way to do this :) There is no need to = move > them, as the same result could be achieved without moving directories, bu= t I > thought that it would be easier for anyone to see which libraries are 'co= re' > and which are not. >=20 > Not moving those directories would definitely simplify this patch series. >=20 > > Thanks > > -- > > Thomas >=20 > Thanks, > Sergio Hi Thomas, Any other comments/suggestions ?=20 My main concern would be the patch needed to move librte_eal (around 6MB).= =20 Thoughts? Thanks, Sergio