Re: [dpdk-dev] Sharing Common libs between PMDs

[Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>]

> > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Sharing Common libs between PMDs
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Bruce
> > > > > Richardson
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 3:05 PM
> > > > > To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
> > > > > Cc: Liron Himi <lironh@marvell.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Sharing Common libs between PMDs
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 08:25:45PM +0530, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 09:34:40 +0000
> > > > > > > From: Liron Himi <lironh@marvell.com>
> > > > > > > To: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
> > > > > > > CC: Liron Himi <lironh@marvell.com>
> > > > > > > Subject: [dpdk-dev] Sharing Common libs between PMDs
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We have several PMDs in DPDK that are using the same
> > > > > > > underlying
> > > > common libraries.
> > > > > > > In addition, we have plans to add some new common service
> > > > > > > into
> > > > DPDK that already introduces too
> > > > > much complexity with the way that the code is written now.
> > > > > > > Therefore, we would like to move all our common functions
> > > > > > > calls
> > > > into one shared/common folder in
> > > > > DPDK and we need to find proper place for this purpose.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can you suggest on such a place?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There was an attempt to create "driver/common" but latter the
> > > > common code
> > > > > > for NXP HW device got moved to drivers/bus/dpaa/. Linux kernel
> > > > > > has something called "driver/soc", I think, "driver/soc" may
> > > > > > be more
> > > > appropriate.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Currently DPDK's driver build dependency is in the following
> > > > > > order (bus, mempool, net, crypto, event).
> > > > > > Other than driver/common or driver/soc, one option could be to
> > > > > > - Move the common code to bus or mempool and
> > > > > > - Across the drivers, include the header files through CFLAGS
> > > > > > if
> > > > the common code
> > > > > >   is in header file
> > > > > >
> > > >
> https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdpdk.
> > > >
> org%2Fbrowse%2Fdpdk%2Ftree%2Fdrivers%2Fevent%2Focteontx%2FMakefile
> > > > %23n1
> > > >
> 3&data=02%7C01%7Cshreyansh.jain%40nxp.com%7Cfa7ba7a1dfd94b9336c008
> > > > d589c
> > > >
> 63dd7%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C6365664069555
> 06
> > > > 340&s
> > > >
> data=MkxFJUuHPuBFIqAgjmUzUcgRms9WTsxkkMQah4kGAlM%3D&reserved=0
> > > > > >
> > > > > Given that this seems to be a recurring problem, I think having
> > > > > a drivers/common folder may not be a bad thing.
> > > > >
> > > > > /Bruce
> > > > We've been grappling with the same problem for QAT driver.
> > > > A variant we were about to propose was to rename drivers/bus to
> > > > drivers/lib.
> > > > And possibly move drivers/mempool to drivers/lib As the rest of
> > > > the drivers/xxx are actually PMDs, while mempool and bus are libs
> > > > on which other drivers depend.
> > > > I'm ok with adding a drivers/common instead, but the above seems
> > > > cleaner.
> > >
> > > In my opinion, I think we should add a common/ without modifying the
> > > bus/mempool structure. I agree
> > that bus/mempool are not standalone PMDs themselves, but they are not
> > libraries either in true sense - they /plug/ into the eal framework and *may*
> provide service to drivers.
> > >
> > > As for common/ - that gets a +1 from me.
> >
> > +1 for drivers/common
> Ok.
> +1 for drivers/common

+1 for drivers/common