[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] mk: Remove combined library and related options

[Kavanagh, Mark B]

>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