From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB1C242D12; Wed, 21 Jun 2023 11:54:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58F264068E; Wed, 21 Jun 2023 11:54:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49A104003C for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2023 11:54:45 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1687341284; 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=DqoUxnVdODOVf4KtYoJgBMD7kxsBR9bEaJa0Ii/3u+s=; b=YsJ2n0cLaDFozhYP9/FCwYqOcy81PKkQD3wVnE/GGpmh32ZltzscTcNcUaQ024+RcIswtv Obhtq1ba/O//LfQqxn6c2KE9+9+xroxPtY8exKgLcbQFGeVp5+CfQbDOvVP1KYmK2LQP09 xiQtii1jQH8E6S5HuawO3mtExUi+QcM= Received: from mail-oi1-f197.google.com (mail-oi1-f197.google.com [209.85.167.197]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-623-snP2f2UWOQGcfWRbk83oCw-1; Wed, 21 Jun 2023 05:54:43 -0400 X-MC-Unique: snP2f2UWOQGcfWRbk83oCw-1 Received: by mail-oi1-f197.google.com with SMTP id 5614622812f47-3a04647957dso748672b6e.1 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2023 02:54:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1687341283; x=1689933283; 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=DqoUxnVdODOVf4KtYoJgBMD7kxsBR9bEaJa0Ii/3u+s=; b=PELs6rGup9eQEcLjLfpbAxVeq7GEuKSUmsjviKtIT8So4qXNr36psLPJFN7YszEWni zU5ob+Wud4nJgst5ABj7QfXQvKao+8W44l7V+eJPeUJ8lnMF3UUAb26ii7i2qsJDyQqA eiX/Lzhm2w824BrkW1UHcbEMLAl6ssofDHNyTaNc01OtSLjhZW1Y4+8Ug9QkFOnWJGmT lbCeSz8RO9kocfPoDLJhvNwYo7fxBfQVCeVxxS0Vhq7NlbsuwWZaGHIOpdsSK+/P1Qq0 rto6GGqQuzleWygxqWjIYKAWWvYOmfqwkbdk2tKUT+MxGSFVc9zxLV5g+umiJnXMRsRC LTIg== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDz1Zvg5XlvAcWyrXY137oaSvU9DCCMIdOtB1MhnD3O2uIiGBf6A gTlIdeupwYcSKMncKeJbsx/MKcDuL9rt72OQuvxtFObxlpjCT1PiiE49p0n0Gmm6X7NEuPslCpB i7SkUWugu36l++2IkYDQ= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:23c7:b0:39e:dc23:d83f with SMTP id bq7-20020a05680823c700b0039edc23d83fmr6729491oib.56.1687341282897; Wed, 21 Jun 2023 02:54:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ7WddIOCKGKQv/kb8T5mZDX6b5KZheaQwh885VDyuoi3lbNn4Cau6vZf17iu9V9EJSduDQsqFFLRvVLnd7FC5M= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:23c7:b0:39e:dc23:d83f with SMTP id bq7-20020a05680823c700b0039edc23d83fmr6729481oib.56.1687341282616; Wed, 21 Jun 2023 02:54:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20211117112847.7362-6-david.marchand@redhat.com> <23115010.6Emhk5qWAg@thomas> In-Reply-To: From: David Marchand Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2023 11:54:31 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] build: select optional libraries To: Bruce Richardson , =?UTF-8?Q?Juraj_Linke=C5=A1?= Cc: Thomas Monjalon , dev@dpdk.org, bluca@debian.org 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 5:05=E2=80=AFPM Bruce Richardson wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 04:33:15PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 20/06/2023 11:03, Bruce Richardson: > > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 10:48:50AM +0200, David Marchand wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 10:45=E2=80=AFAM Bruce Richardson > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I notice the change in behaviour for enabling the depreca= ted libs. Is there > > > > > > > > > any other change in behaviour for current users? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only change I see, is that this implementation breaks e= nabling > > > > > > > > deprecated libs via disable_libs. > > > > > > > > It may break existing developer build directory and maybe s= ome > > > > > > > > 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 bui= ld some > > > > > > > > deprecated library. > > > > > > > > It is more straightforward to request building libraries vi= a > > > > > > > > -Denable_libs=3D explicitly or -Denable_lib= s=3D* > > > > > > > > implicitly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But again, we may be breaking something for people who reli= ed on this behavior. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's what I expected, and I think that is ok. I just wanted= to check that > > > > > > > the change in behaviour was only for the deprecated libs case= . > > > > > > > > > > > > Thomas, wdyt? > > > > > > It requires some release note, at least. > > > > > > > > > > > I am assuming this is not targetting this release though, right? = Assuming > > > > > 23.11, we can put in a deprecation note informing of the change a= head of > > > > > time too. > > > > > > > > I was hoping to get it in this release. > > > > But I am fine with postponing and announcing the change beforehand. > > > > > > > Given the fact that we are likely changing behaviour, and the fact th= at the > > > deprecated libs makes it more complicated than the drivers one (since= we > > > have always on, default on and default off cases to consider), I thin= k it's > > > best we don't rush this. > > > > I'm not sure what is the best behaviour. > > I tend to think such options should be simple to understand > > with only 3 cases: > > - no option -> default > > - enable option -> only core mandatory and listed libraries > > - disable option -> all but the listed libraries > > It looks simpler to forbid having both enable and disable libraries. > > > > Would you be open to change the behaviour of the drivers options? > > > > [reducing CC list a bit] > > As a further follow-up, I really think we need to move slowly and more > carefully on this. While I can see the simplicity in disallowing the two > options to be specified, depending on how we go about choosing the > enabling of the deprecated libs, we may want to keep support for allowing > both. I agree, we need more time on this topic, sorry for being pushy earlier :-)= . > > Specifically, my current concern/thinking is: > * David points out that using the "disabled_libs" options may not make th= e > most logic sense for *enabling* deprecated libs. > * While that is true, I think the usability of enabling them via > "enabled_libs" could be pretty terrible - unless we start adding more > complications. Specifically, if someone wants to just enable KNI in the > build using "enable_libs", specifying "-Denable_libs=3Dkni" will not do > what they want - sure it will enable kni, but will disable dozens of > other parts of DPDK. > * Therefore, I think keeping the disabling of deprecated parts of DPDK vi= a > disabled_libs is easier on users - though agreed it is slightly less > logical. However, if we forbid using enabled and disabled options > together, that would mean that to switch to enabled libs style, the use= r > has to set both enabled libs, *and* clear the default disabled libs opt= ion > of the deprecated ones. > * Therefore, right now I'm tending more towards something like the status > quo - disabling deprecated via disable option, but allowing both enable > and disable options together. This hasn't caused us issues with drivers > thus far, so I'd be hopeful for using it for libs. Mixing enable/disable_drivers has been possible since the introduction of enable_drivers. Looking at the code, it is unclear the intention was to make them exclusive= . Is there no usecase for using both options in some soc configuration? Juraj, do you have an opinion? > > The other alternative, is we come up with: > * another scheme for managing deprecated libs > * a special keyword for enabled libs to cover the default case, that one > can use to add on the deprecated libs, without having to call out each > and every other optional library. I think a separate option to control deprecated libraries would be better. This option would control whether the deprecation libs are part of the optional libraries list. The optional libraries list would then be evaluated according to enable/disable_libs. I'll try this to see how it behaves. --=20 David Marchand