On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 04:19:47PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2016-06-07 15:07, Bruce Richardson: > > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 03:00:45PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 2016-06-07 14:36, Christian Ehrhardt: > > > > But I still struggle to see how to fix the circular dependency between > > > > librte_eal and librte_mempool. > > > > > > Why is there a circular dependency? > > > Only because of logs using mempool? > > > > > > > Maybe now is a time to look at this part of the original threads again > > > > to > > > > eventually get apps less overlinked? > > > > => http://www.dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-May/039441.html > > > > My naive suggestions in generalized form can be found there (no answer > > > > yet): > > > > => > > > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/37351699/how-to-create-both-so-files-for-two-circular-depending-libraries > > > > > > I would prefer removing the circular dependency. > > > Maybe we can rewrite the code to not use mempool or move it outside of > > > EAL. > > > > Or else we can take the attitude that the mempools and the rings are just a > > core > > part of DPDK and move them and the EAL into a dpdk_core library at link > > time. > > Having the code separate in the git tree is good, but I'm not sure having > > the resulting object files being in separate .a/.so files is particularly > > useful. > > I can't see someone wanting to use one without the other. > > EAL could be used as an abstraction layer on top of systems and platforms. > And I think keeping things separated and layered help to maintain a design > easy to understand.
All that applies to the code, not so much to the resulting libraries generated. I don't see how having a separate eal.so and mempool.so particularly helps in any way, except to require more flags for linking. /Bruce
