> From: Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio > Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 5:22 PM > To: Thomas Monjalon > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 00/13] Update build system > > Hi Thomas, > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > > Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 4:52 PM > > > > Hi Sergio, > > > > 2015-01-12 16:33, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy: > > > This patch series updates the DPDK build system. > > > > Thanks for proposing such rework. > > We need discussions on that topic. So I ask some questions below. > > > > > Following are the goals it tries to accomplish: > > > - Create a library containing core DPDK libraries (librte_eal, > > > librte_malloc, librte_mempool, librte_mbuf and librte_ring). > > > The idea of core libraries is to group those libraries that are > > > always required for any DPDK application. > > > > How is it better? Is it only to reduce dependencies lines? > > > In my opinion I think that there are a set of libraries that are always > required > and therefore should be grouped as a single one. > Basically all apps and other DPDK libs would have dependencies to these core > libraries. > > Aside from that, I don't think there is any difference. Note that this affects > shared libraries, with no difference for apps linked against static libs. > > > > - Remove config option to build a combined library. > > > > Why removing combined library? Is there people finding it helpful? > > > I don't think it makes sense from a shared library point of view, maybe it > does for static? > For example, in the case of shared libraries I think we want to try to avoid > the > case where we have an app linked against librte_dpdk.so, but such library > may contain different libraries depending on the options that were enabled > when the lib was built. > > The core libraries would be that set of libraries that are always required for > an app, and its content would be fixed regardless of the option libraries > (like > acl, hash, distributor, etc.) We could add more libraries as core if we think > it is > a better solution, but the goal should be that librte_core.so contains the > same libraries/API regardless of the system/arch. > > > > - For shared libraries, explicitly link against dependant > > > libraries (adding entries to DT_NEEDED). > > > > OK, good. > > > > > - Update app linking flags against static/shared DPDK libs. > > > > > > Note that this patch turns up being quite big because of moving lib > > > directories to a new subdirectory. > > > I have ommited the actual diff from the patch doing the move of > > > librte_eal as it is quite big (6MB). Probably a different approach > > > is > > preferred. > > > > Why do you think moving directories is needed? > > > Actually I am not sure is the best way to do this :) There is no need to move > them, as the same result could be achieved without moving directories, but I > thought that it would be easier for anyone to see which libraries are 'core' > and which are not. > > Not moving those directories would definitely simplify this patch series. > > > Thanks > > -- > > Thomas > > Thanks, > Sergio
Hi Thomas, Any other comments/suggestions ? My main concern would be the patch needed to move librte_eal (around 6MB). Thoughts? Thanks, Sergio
