On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 8:17 AM Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.w...@arm.com> wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrha...@canonical.com> > > Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 8:32 PM > > To: Jan Viktorin <vikto...@rehivetech.com>; Ruifeng Wang > > <ruifeng.w...@arm.com>; dev <dev@dpdk.org> > > Cc: Luca Boccassi <bl...@debian.org> > > Subject: Probing the expected state/support of DPDK@armhf > > > > Hi, > > I wanted to ask about the current state of DPDK@armhf (not arm64, that > > seems fine AFAICS). > > Since there are too many arms today, I mean armhf as in [0]. > I think armhf in question refers to armv7. > > > > > What I see when building DPDK 21.11 is > > 2973 ../config/meson.build:364:1: ERROR: Problem encountered: Number of > > CPU cores not specified. > > > > Right now this seems to be broken the same everywhere - Suse [1], fedora > > [2], Debian/Ubuntu [3] > Looks like this happens with native build on armv7 machine. RTE_MAX_LCORE is > not set for the build.
Thanks for the hint, just FYI using the newer -Dplatform=generic without specifying the machine as we did in the past yields the same issue. I understand that every custom built project needs it's little special twist, but that (ask for the lowest common denominator) is exactly what generic builds in Distributions will need. > > I'm not asking for a fix for this particular issue (although I guess people > > would > > be happy), but more about the general state of DPDK@armhf. > > > > Debian and Ubuntu used to build it on armhf as well, but over the recent > > years I feel (no hard data) that usage there was next to none. > > > > OTOH Thomas said that recently people cared about armv7 [4] > > > > My suggestion would be to disable the build on armhf in Debian/Ubuntu > > (+elsewhere?) until it reaches a more stable phase and real use-cases. > > But maybe I missed some use-cases, therefore I wanted to reach out to the > > mailing list to probe for more opinions on this. > I'm not aware of amount of users that using DPDK on armv7. But [4] suggests > that there is real use case. > I think the build on armhf does have value. It helps to maintain general > status on armv7. That is one of > the reason why user [4] can enable armv7 cross compile smoothly. > I suggest to keep the build and fix the failure. > > > > > Thanks for your thoughts on this in advance! > > > > P.S. If it is meant to work and be supported, then we will need a fix for > > that > Hi Juraj, > Can you have a look at the issue? > > > > > [0]: https://wiki.debian.org/ArmHardFloatPort > > [1]: > > https://build.opensuse.org/public/build/home:bluca:dpdk/openSUSE_Facto > > ry_ARM/armv7l/dpdk/_log > > [2]: > > https://build.opensuse.org/public/build/home:bluca:dpdk/Fedora_35/armv > > 7l/dpdk/_log > > [3]: https://launchpadlibrarian.net/567810935/buildlog_ubuntu-jammy- > > armhf.dpdk_21.11~rc1-1u~ppa1_BUILDING.txt.gz > > [4]: https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20210610111839.7481-1- > > s.chandrak...@globaledgesoft.com/ > > > > -- > > Christian Ehrhardt > > Staff Engineer, Ubuntu Server > > Canonical Ltd -- Christian Ehrhardt Staff Engineer, Ubuntu Server Canonical Ltd
