From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B19525A98 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 12:11:47 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 11 Feb 2015 03:04:11 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,558,1418112000"; d="scan'208";a="684156577" Received: from irsmsx106.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.31]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 11 Feb 2015 03:11:16 -0800 Received: from irsmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.64]) by IRSMSX106.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.8.94]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:11:14 +0000 From: "Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio" To: Neil Horman Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/8] Improve build process Thread-Index: AQHQO9csAhbRLFHQkk+N8RLUPQ4JH5zXTHuAgAACWfCAADHOgIAA7BoggABHFoCAACPbsIAAIVqAgBJYs+A= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:11:13 +0000 Message-ID: <91383E96CE459D47BCE92EFBF5CE73B004F4AB9B@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1422544811-26385-1-git-send-email-sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com> <20150129163859.GE1999@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <91383E96CE459D47BCE92EFBF5CE73B004F43D9B@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <20150129194539.GG1999@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <91383E96CE459D47BCE92EFBF5CE73B004F453D7@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <20150130140507.GA2664@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <91383E96CE459D47BCE92EFBF5CE73B004F45534@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <20150130181249.GC2664@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> In-Reply-To: <20150130181249.GC2664@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> 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 0/8] Improve build process 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: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:11:48 -0000 > From: Neil Horman [mailto:nhorman@tuxdriver.com] > Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 6:13 PM > To: Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio > Cc: Thomas Monjalon; dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/8] Improve build process >=20 > On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 05:38:49PM +0000, Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio wrote: [snip] > > > > So would it be reasonable to add DT_NEEDED entries to all DPDK librarie= s > but EAL? > > If I understood what you were saying right, we could enforce the > > 'dependency' in the linker script with something like this: > > $ cat librte_eal.so > > INPUT( librte_eal.so.1 -lrte_mempool -lrte_malloc) We could have such > > linker script for librte_eal.so instead of the soft link once > > versioning is in place. > > > Correct. >=20 > > Things that would be missing versus the proposed patch: > > - As I have mention in previous post, ldd info for EAL library would n= ot > reflect > > its dependency to other DPDK libs. > librte_eal.so would no show those dependencies, as far as I know (though = I > haven't explicitly checked). The subordunate libraries included in the i= nput > line, may or may not show dependencies among themselves, depending on > your build setup (and the use of --no-as-needed and -l when linking the > individual .so libraries. >=20 > > - I was enforcing resolving all references when building the libraries= (-z > defs), so > > we either remove it altogether or skip eal. > I think thats correct, yes. >=20 > > - All apps would show DT_NEEDED entries for a set of DPDK libraries th= at > > in most cases are required (eal, mempool, malloc, mbuf, ring VS > > dpdk_core) > > > I think apps linked to libdpdk_core would have DT_NEEDED entries for > libdpdk_core, not the subordonate libraries (though check me on that to b= e > sure). >=20 Just checked on this and they do link against the subordinate libraries, al= though=20 It does not really matter as we are dropping the 'core' library approach an= yway. > > I think that the linker script approach is reasonable if we prefer to > > go that way instead of creating a core library. > > > I think it would make sense from a build environment point of view, in th= at it > allows library specific flags to be incorporated properly. I think the o= nly > downside is that the individual libraries still need to be carried around > (though they can be ignored from an application build/run standpoint). > You're question should probably be asked of people using COMBINED_LIBS > currently to make sure that meets their needs, though I think it will. >=20 > Neil >=20 So I just realized that I was not having into account a possible scenario, = where we have an app built with static dpdk libs then loading a dso with -d opti= on. In such case, because the pmd would have DT_NEEDED entries, dlopen will fai= l. So to enable such scenario we would need to build PMDs without DT_NEEDED entries. Thoughts? Regards, Sergio