Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mk: fix missing link of librte_vhost in shared, non-combined config

["Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio" <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>]

> From: Panu Matilainen [mailto:pmatilai@redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 11:26 AM
> To: Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio; dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mk: fix missing link of librte_vhost in
> shared, non-combined config
> 
> On 02/11/2015 12:51 PM, Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio wrote:
> > Hi Panu,
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Panu Matilainen
> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 8:53 AM
> >> To: dev@dpdk.org
> >> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mk: fix missing link of librte_vhost in
> >> shared, non-combined config
> >>
> >> When building shared, non-combined library, librte_vhost does not get
> >> linked in, causing among other things vhost example to fail building
> >> to do undefined symbols on linkage.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@redhat.com>
> >> ---
> >>   mk/rte.app.mk | 4 ++++
> >>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/mk/rte.app.mk b/mk/rte.app.mk index 95dbb0b..55d989e
> >> 100644
> >> --- a/mk/rte.app.mk
> >> +++ b/mk/rte.app.mk
> >> @@ -125,6 +125,10 @@ LDLIBS += -lm
> >>   LDLIBS += -lrt
> >>   endif
> >>
> >> +ifeq ($(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_VHOST), y) LDLIBS += -lrte_vhost endif
> >> +
> >>   endif # ! CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_COMBINE_LIBS
> >>
> >>   ifeq ($(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_PMD_PCAP),y)
> >> --
> >> 2.1.0
> >
> > I think that vhost is being linked in the wrong place (plugins section).
> > The plugins only get linked when building static libraries.
> > I think the patch should also remove vhost from the plugins section.
> 
> Right, so vhost isn't a pluggable driver in the sense that pmds are. I wont
> claim to be familiar with all this virt-related puzzle pieces :) I'll send an
> updated patch, I was just looking to fix build in my particular config and
> ignored the rest.
> 
> On a related note, shouldn't librte_pmd_bond and librte_pmd_xenvirt be
> included in the plugins section along with all the other pmds?
> 
Hi Panu,

Good  question :)

I did wonder the same thing not long ago.

I think the reason is that (someone may correct me if I'm wrong) there
are specific unit tests for those pmds (testing extra API) that require
them to always be linked against.

Regards,
Sergio

> 	- Panu -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>