From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com> Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C8F55424 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 12:01:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 22 Jan 2015 03:01:35 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,448,1418112000"; d="scan'208";a="515938832" Received: from irsmsx103.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.157]) by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 22 Jan 2015 02:54:50 -0800 Received: from irsmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.64]) by IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.3.242]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 11:01:33 +0000 From: "Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio" <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com> To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>, Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com> Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 00/13] Update build system Thread-Index: AQHQLoW0TkjRJqHabk2BE0EuYo1gOJy8sx2AgAADTmCAD0Do0IAACt+AgAAEo2A= Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 11:01:31 +0000 Message-ID: <91383E96CE459D47BCE92EFBF5CE73B004F412E9@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1421080446-19249-1-git-send-email-sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com> <91383E96CE459D47BCE92EFBF5CE73B004F26FD1@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <91383E96CE459D47BCE92EFBF5CE73B004F412AF@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <2045513.NOD9qnQLhk@xps13> In-Reply-To: <2045513.NOD9qnQLhk@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" <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 <dev.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/> List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 11:01:37 -0000 > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 10:39 AM > To: Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 00/13] Update build system >=20 > 2015-01-22 10:03, Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio: > > > 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 > > > > > > Hi Thomas, > > > > > > > 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 ar= e > > > > > 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 required and therefore should be grouped as a single one. > > > Basically all apps and other DPDK libs would have dependencies to > > > these core libraries. > > > > > > Aside from that, I don't think there is any difference. Note that > > > this affects shared libraries, with no difference for apps linked aga= inst > static libs. > > > > > > > > - 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 it does for static? > > > For example, in the case of shared libraries I think we want to try > > > to avoid 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, distributor, etc.) We could > > > add more libraries as core if we think it is a better solution, but > > > the goal should be that librte_core.so contains the same libraries/AP= I > regardless of the system/arch. > > > > > > > > - 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, but I thought that it would be easier for anyone = to > see which libraries are 'core' > > > and which are not. > > > > > > Not moving those directories would definitely simplify this patch ser= ies. > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > -- > > > > Thomas > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Sergio > > > > Hi Thomas, > > > > Any other comments/suggestions ? > > My main concern would be the patch needed to move librte_eal (around > 6MB). > > > > Thoughts? >=20 > I think you shouldn't move the libs. > Maybe we can link the core libs into one (not sure of the interest) but I= think > we shouldn't move them in a core/ subdir. >=20 > On another side, I'd like to see KNI moving out of EAL. >=20 > -- > Thomas I think moving KNI out of EAL belongs to a different patch. We can still link librte_core without moving the directories into core/ I'll work on it. Thanks, Sergio