From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1503B42D06; Tue, 20 Jun 2023 10:31:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 036484068E; Tue, 20 Jun 2023 10:31:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4644400D6 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 20 Jun 2023 10:31:35 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1687249895; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=CR4s/LWc/wh/C6XKcvHMOnMvcdQYBfRIA2hEEtrlk9A=; b=B2XTBliUvcV5uZq5c6+U2PYo93o1/ldl3mDMTNei7rAjDwHrzd3NO976UgOUh+G3b5noXg YJ3sXSxi/7DzMWbERWpCVyWvgWCHnHRr1taCAe0pmx60i8KiFPQznHd1eDAn1CbRzBDKzZ /3DHZphIBRspeEhSeJ+CaWW+cMynq4k= Received: from mail-pj1-f70.google.com (mail-pj1-f70.google.com [209.85.216.70]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-6-xdAlm_nhOGmE5s30YBIQ2g-1; Tue, 20 Jun 2023 04:31:32 -0400 X-MC-Unique: xdAlm_nhOGmE5s30YBIQ2g-1 Received: by mail-pj1-f70.google.com with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-25eccfe125dso1195407a91.3 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 20 Jun 2023 01:31:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1687249891; x=1689841891; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=CR4s/LWc/wh/C6XKcvHMOnMvcdQYBfRIA2hEEtrlk9A=; b=ibfgnZudgtdiu58SA0q3whUGDDSAzFzohN9ei/2HDuC8o36nSO0YyfHpXXpt2Sy6w/ nZeFYf27RRL2Jwdb8VHQauSExg/ap6HW8bho8qNKlhIEIXeQzw58U3UzAd1u9qHLVJ8i GTIrnXSSyRyAWe53m8DueiGPoUI+SzXxOLJ0Qt/kB0h9yWIeGZ3lGb9vSFd2W7FX9tne 27WXZEABcitZ80M5KKEtl/b4PyEXy8f79Gjwma+KX980mV5H/uC4H32sup3bx5DiSeMe Ene4xrhHMhzvqzYpLFh87CdI0/V2B3Hp+LmQQqD6ObVZGTa4384oFV44skqyWzE3B6xT xdQQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDwlftiBuQcveJySr3JvrWE6BnUgI3CIhdzoeSW5ejrmzyrq9dPw B69k53W/Rw1ovUclKKGZAs0zg+TGFlJYudLnQsN4lvXy9TZZjiBcDWCtC7eME/nFUxlmpERDv5m 66Y5108m09HSCD3HHM9E= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:207:b0:25e:aaff:400c with SMTP id c7-20020a17090a020700b0025eaaff400cmr6657617pjc.20.1687249890944; Tue, 20 Jun 2023 01:31:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ5DZY24F5Wme+a+n6Z0gmb3ryXm4hVH/Q7iCv7tebl9ghd35MmJ0Cy7Rsi5ErFzeuVIoul8leXbNc0th5TXdEg= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:207:b0:25e:aaff:400c with SMTP id c7-20020a17090a020700b0025eaaff400cmr6657607pjc.20.1687249890628; Tue, 20 Jun 2023 01:31:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20211117112847.7362-6-david.marchand@redhat.com> <20230616071450.3542479-1-david.marchand@redhat.com> <CAJFAV8y3ejgVUydSvYDM9tPU-zJz+gFJcD3QPHn7V-5nVP5oNA@mail.gmail.com> <ZJBlkqojcvpEwMjJ@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <ZJBlkqojcvpEwMjJ@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> From: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2023 10:31:19 +0200 Message-ID: <CAJFAV8w8dcH09mQjXuDWHjUPOi-1fbgxyJSxZNasE0tr8G-bWw@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] build: select optional libraries To: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com> Cc: dev@dpdk.org, thomas@monjalon.net, bluca@debian.org, tredaelli@redhat.com, i.maximets@ovn.org, james.r.harris@intel.com, mohammed@hawari.fr, Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com>, Michael Santana <maicolgabriel@hotmail.com> X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/> List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 4:26=E2=80=AFPM Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 04:11:37PM +0200, David Marchand wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 9:21=E2=80=AFAM David Marchand > > <david.marchand@redhat.com> wrote: > > > @@ -141,13 +137,25 @@ foreach l:libraries > > > deps +=3D ['eal'] > > > endif > > > > > > - if disabled_libs.contains(l) > > > + if not enable_libs.contains(l) > > > + build =3D false > > > + reason =3D 'not in enabled libraries build config' > > > + elif disable_libs.contains(l) > > > build =3D false > > > reason =3D 'explicitly disabled via build config' > > > - if dpdk_libs_deprecated.contains(l) > > > + endif > > > > There is also a change in behavior for current users of the > > -Ddisable_libs=3D configuration (which was used for enabling deprecated > > libraries, for example). > > I notice the change in behaviour for enabling the deprecated libs. Is the= re > any other change in behaviour for current users? The only change I see, is that this implementation breaks enabling deprecated libs via disable_libs. It may break existing developer build directory and maybe some packaging scripts, this is why I am a bit puzzled. Relooking at the disable_libs option current implementation, it seems backward to pass a disable_libs option when you want to build some deprecated library. It is more straightforward to request building libraries via -Denable_libs=3D<deprecated_lib> explicitly or -Denable_libs=3D* implicitly. But again, we may be breaking something for people who relied on this behav= ior. > > > My current solution resides in making disable_libs and enable_libs > > options being mutually exclusive (meaning that presence of a value for > > enable_libs will ignore any configuration around disable_libs). > > > > Does it look ok to you? > > > Do we need to make them mutually exclusive? The current drivers > implementation allows them to be used together, I think. I would prefer we are consistent with the drivers options. --=20 David Marchand