[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/1] eal: Don't fail secondary if primary is missing tailqs

[Thomas Monjalon]

2016-10-05 09:49, Jean Tourrilhes:
> On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 09:58:01AM +0200, David Marchand wrote:
> > I thought you had unaligned binaries.
> > You are compiling only one binary ?
> 
> 	Primary is compiled using the DPDK build process.
> 	Secondary is build using the Snort build process.
> 	Both are pointing to the exact same libdpdk.a.

Probably that you would have some aligned builds if Snort was using
a pkg-config approach to link DPDK.
I cannot commit but I would like to generate some pkg-config files
in the DPDK build system to ease linking from external applications.

> > I am not sure Sergio is talking about the constructor approach.
> 
> 	But, this is exactly the cause of the problem.
> 
> > Anyway, the constructors invocation order should not matter.
> 
> 	For tailq, I agree. For mempool constructors, order do matter.

I don't know why such a complex function (rte_mempool_register_ops) is
called inside a constructor. Maybe that's the main problem.