On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 10:43 AM Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 12:09:51PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 14:57:50 +0100 > > Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 02:54:21PM +0200, Mohammed Hawari wrote: > > > > Hello Bruce, > > > > > > > > Thanks for the quick response, see inline > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Mohammed > > > > > > > > > On 18 Sep 2020, at 13:43, Bruce Richardson > > > > > <bruce.richard...@intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 10:49:23AM +0200, Mohammed Hawari wrote: > > > > >> Similarly to the disable_drivers option, the disable_libs option is > > > > >> introduced. This allows to selectively disable the build of elements > > > > >> in libs to speed-up the build process. > > > > >> > > > > >> Signed-off-by: Mohammed Hawari <moham...@hawari.fr> > > > > >> --- > > > > > > > > > > While I don't particularly like allowing libs to be enabled and > > > > > disabled > > > > > since it complicates the build, I can see why it's necessary. This is > > > > > an > > > > > area that does need some discussion, as I believe others have some > > > > > opinions > > > > > in this area too. > > > > > > > > > > However, for now, some additional thoughts, both on this patch and in > > > > > general: > > > > > > > > > > 1. I see you included disabling apps if their required libs are not > > > > > available. What about the drivers though? > > > > To my understanding, in the current code, the drivers/meson.build file > > > > already > > > > does that check with: > > > > > > > > foreach d:deps > > > > if not is_variable('shared_rte_' + d) > > > > build = false > > > > > > > > > > Yes, my mistake, I forgot that that was added as one driver could depend > > > upon another. :-( > > > > > > > > 2. A bigger issue is whether this is really what we want to do, > > > > > guarantee a > > > > > passing build even if vast chunks of DPDK are actually enabled? I'd > > > > > tend > > > > > towards "no" in this case, and I'd rather see disabling of libs more > > > > > constrained. > > > > > 3. To this end, I think I'd rather see us maintain a set of libs > > > > > which are > > > > > allowed to be disabled, and prevent the rest from being so. For > > > > > example, > > > > > it makes no sense in DPDK to disable the EAL or mempool libs, since > > > > > nothing > > > > > will build, while the bitrate_stats or latency_stats libs could > > > > > likely > > > > > be disabled with little or no impact. > > > > I tend to agree with that more structured approach, but I am going to > > > > wait until > > > > we get some more thoughts from the community before starting that work. > > > > > > > > > > That seems a wise approach. If there is no consensus after a while here, > > > it > > > probably needs to go to the technical board. > > > > > > Marking current patch as "Changes requested". > > Assume that if someone wants to go further then and propose a more > > targeted build setting. Something like minimal?? > > The more targetted approach has been implemented and can constantly be > improved upon. We can already disable a set of libraries, with only those > validated as being ok to disable on that list. Therefore, I think this > patch can just be rejected as obsolete. Any additional work in this area > should be: > * increasing list of optional libs > * looking again at adding an "enable_libs" flag. I was against this > previously, but now think it's time may have come!
I still have my patch on enable_libs that I rebased not too long ago (around the time the iova va build option was touched by Thomas). I could retest it and post it if it helps. -- David Marchand