Re: [dpdk-dev] Did we reduce unnecessary linkage too well?

[Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com>]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Bruce Richardson <
bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote:

> To me having some sort of
> naming convention might not be a bad thing, so that we can point it at
> generic
> folders.
>

Distributions don't really agree on the prefix path for the libraries
/usr/lib<changesstarthere>.
So I'd expect that it is hard for someone out there whatever you pick :-/
That said I'd not pick any default by dpdk.org.

In my case I thin I just "left" the linkage discussions too early and by
that forgot to implement RTE_EAL_PMD_PATH which I now did.

If there are no PMDs at all or no matter how many PMDs where there it can't
probe something the error messages might point a bit more towards
the RTE_EAL_PMD_PATH.
E.g. no drivers found, please make sure you have PMDs for your network
devices in <where RTE_EAL_PMD_PATH points to>
And if RTE_EAL_PMD_PATH is "" (=disabled) let them know that as well.
And finally one might suggest trying with EAL option -d.
To then give up and die - just with more words before :-)
That might help.


-- 
Christian Ehrhardt
Software Engineer, Ubuntu Server
Canonical Ltd