On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 02:46:13PM +0200, David Marchand wrote: > On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 3:36 PM Bruce Richardson > <bruce.richard...@intel.com> wrote: > > > > There is a general desire to reduce the size and scope of EAL. To this > > end, this patchset makes a (very) small step in that direction by taking > > the logging functionality out of EAL and putting it into its own library > > that can be built and maintained separately. > > > > As with the first RFC for this, the main obstacle is the "fnmatch" > > function which is needed by both EAL and the new log function when > > building on windows. While the function cannot stay in EAL - or we would > > have a circular dependency, moving it to a new library or just putting > > it in the log library have the disadvantages that it then "leaks" into > > the public namespace without an rte_prefix, which could cause issues. > > Since only a single function is involved, subsequent versions take a > > different approach to v1, and just moves the offending function to be a > > static function in a header file. This allows use by multiple libs > > without conflicting names or making it public. > > > > The other complication, as explained in v1 RFC was that of multiple > > implementations for different OS's. This is solved here in the same > > way as v1, by including the OS in the name and having meson pick the > > correct file for each build. Since only one file is involved, there > > seemed little need for replicating EAL's separate subdirectories > > per-OS. > > Series applied, thanks Bruce for this first step. > > As mentionned during the maintainers weekly call yesterday, this is > only a first "easy" step but, thinking of next steps, more splitting > may not be that easy. >
I took a look after doing this patchset to try and find more easy to extract parts, but did not find many. The EAL is pretty intertwined now. As I look at it, there are really two ways to try and dis-entangle it - bottoms-up or top-down. This patchset is an example of the former, taking a logical set of related APIs and pulling them out into a separate library that EAL can depend upon. There may be some other API-sets like this we can pull out, but in my search I didn't find any. The other tops-down approach may be worth looking at too. We can try and take the top-level EAL init function and separate it out into a separate initialization library (which may be called "EAL" with the rest being called something else). I have not tried this approach to see how it goes, but pulling out the init may allow further dis-entangling of other parts of EAL. /Bruce
