>-----Original Message----- >From: Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio >Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 11:49 AM >To: Kavanagh, Mark B >Cc: dev at dpdk.org >Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] mk: Remove combined library and related >options > >On 13/03/2015 11:34, Kavanagh, Mark B wrote: >>> On 13/03/2015 10:49, Kavanagh, Mark B wrote: >>>>> --- >>>>> config/common_bsdapp | 6 -- >>>>> config/common_linuxapp | 6 -- >>>>> config/defconfig_ppc_64-power8-linuxapp-gcc | 2 - >>>>> lib/Makefile | 1 - >>>>> mk/rte.app.mk | 12 ---- >>>>> mk/rte.lib.mk | 35 ---------- >>>>> mk/rte.sdkbuild.mk | 3 - >>>>> mk/rte.sharelib.mk | 101 >>>>> ---------------------------- >>>>> mk/rte.vars.mk | 9 --- >>>>> 9 files changed, 175 deletions(-) >>>>> delete mode 100644 mk/rte.sharelib.mk >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/config/common_bsdapp b/config/common_bsdapp >>>>> index 8ff4dc2..7ee5ecf 100644 >>>>> --- a/config/common_bsdapp >>>>> +++ b/config/common_bsdapp >>>>> @@ -79,12 +79,6 @@ CONFIG_RTE_FORCE_INTRINSICS=n >>>>> CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_SHARED_LIB=n >>>>> >>>>> # >>>>> -# Combine to one single library >>>>> -# >>>>> -CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_COMBINE_LIBS=n >>>>> -CONFIG_RTE_LIBNAME=intel_dpdk >>>> Hi Sergio, >>>> >>>> Removing these options breaks compatibility with OVS. While it may be >>>> feasible to link >>> to individual static libraries, in our experience, a single combined >>> library provides a >>> much more convenient way of linking. >>>> Thanks, >>>> Mark >>>> >>>>> - >> >> (snip) >> >> >>>>> -endif >>>>> - >>>>> -RTE_LIBNAME := $(CONFIG_RTE_LIBNAME:"%"=%) >>>>> -ifeq ($(RTE_LIBNAME),) >>>>> -RTE_LIBNAME := intel_dpdk >>>>> endif >>>>> >>>>> # RTE_TARGET is deducted from config when we are building the SDK. >>>>> -- >>>>> 1.9.3 >>> Hi Mark, >>> >>> How does this patch break compatibility with OVS? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Sergio >> Hey Sergio, >> >> We use the CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_COMBINE_LIBS and CONFIG_RTE_LINBNAME flags to >> build a single >static DPDK library, named 'libintel_dpdk.a', which OVS links against. >Removing the >combined library option breaks compatibility with any application that links >against the >combined DPDK library. >> >> Is there a strong technical motivation for removing these options? >> >> Thanks, >> Mark > From a shared library point of view, it just does not make sense to >have applications linked against a 'combined' library that may have >different features built in it. >
For OVS, we don't build DPDK as a set of shared libraries, but rather an individual static library, due to the performance penalties inherent in using shared libraries. >Removing these options, aside from the obvious 'less build config >option', it simplifies maintenance of makefiles as we currently have a >separated makefile with specific rules just for combined library. > >It is pretty straight forward to build a single combined archive out of >multiple archives, would it be acceptable to have a script to do this? > This seems a bit 'hacky' to me and I'm not sure that it would be amenable to the OVS maintainers. Unless I'm overlooking something here, I'd prefer to maintain the status quo. >Thanks, >Sergio
