19/10/2020 12:21, Bruce Richardson: > On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 06:46:12PM +0200, David Marchand wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 5:56 PM Bruce Richardson > > <bruce.richard...@intel.com> wrote: > > > > librte_eal.so is indeed built with the 64 value: > > > > $ pahole -C rte_mem_config build/install/lib64/librte_eal.so |grep > > > > memsegs > > > > die__process_function: tag not supported (INVALID)! > > > > struct rte_memseg_list memsegs[64]; /* 136 8704 */ > > > > > > > > > > > > But no trace of the custom value for external applications: > > > > $ grep -r RTE_MAX_MEMSEG_LISTS build/install > > > > build/install/include/rte_config.h:#ifndef RTE_MAX_MEMSEG_LISTS > > > > build/install/include/rte_config.h:#define RTE_MAX_MEMSEG_LISTS 128 > > > > Binary file build/install/lib64/librte_eal.a matches > > > > Binary file build/install/lib64/librte_eal.so.21.0 matches > > > > > > > > I can see the same using the meson option -Dc_args. > > > > > > Good point, I had not thought of external apps using these values. > > > > > > They are mostly for internal use, so maybe its worthwhile looking to not > > > have them in a public header file. What do you think? Is it likely that > > > apps would be using some of these values, or needs to know the specifics? > > > > Some are publicly exposed, like RTE_MEMPOOL_CACHE_MAX_SIZE, > > RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM, RTE_ETHDEV_RXTX_CALLBACKS, > > For those, either we propagate the overriden value to the installed > > rte_config.h or we refuse customisation. > > > I'd suggest the first 2 of those should possibly be global meson options.
How the application is reading the meson options? > Third should probably not be exposed at all. I think everything should be exposed. The application may need to know whether a feature is enabled or not, and what is a specific tuning value. I suspect it is the last blocker for meson adoption. Now that we removed the makefiles, we need to fill this gap urgently.
