2015-02-13 09:27, Panu Matilainen: > On 02/12/2015 05:44 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 2015-02-11 12:31, Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio: > >> From: Panu Matilainen [mailto:pmatilai at redhat.com] > >>> On 02/11/2015 12:51 PM, Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio wrote: > >>>> 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. > > > > A library is considered as a plugin if there is no public API and it > > registers itself. That's the case of normal PMD. > > But bonding and Xen have some library parts with public API. > > It has been discussed and agreed for bonding but I'm not aware of the Xen > > case. > > Fair enough, thanks for the explanation. > > Just wondering about versioning of these things - currently all the PMDs > are versioned as well, which is slightly at odds with their expected > usage, dlopen()'ed items usually are not versioned because it makes the > files moving targets. But if a plugin can be an library too then it > clearly needs to be versioned as well.
Not sure to understand your considerations. Plugins must be versioned because there can be some incompatibilities like mbuf rework. > I'm just thinking of typical packaging where the unversioned *.so > symlinks are in a -devel subpackage and the versioned libraries are in > the main runtime package. Plugins should be loadable by a stable > unversioned name always, for libraries the linker handles it behind the > scenes. So in packaging these things, plugin *.so links need to be > handled differently (placed into the main package) from others. Not > rocket science to filter by 'pmd' in the name, but a new twist anyway > and easy to get wrong. > > One possibility to make it all more obvious might be having a separate > directory for plugins, the mixed case ccould be handled by symlinks. I think I don't understand which use case you are trying to solve.
