[dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/6] power: fix make build for power apps

[David Hunt]

Hi Anatoly,

On 13/1/2021 11:08 AM, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
> On 08-Jan-21 2:30 PM, David Hunt wrote:
>> The power example applications that uses the virtio-serial method of
>> communication cannot currently be built with make, and can only be built
>> using meson/ninja.
>>
>> The guest channel message definitions and functions in guest_channel.h
>> are needed by applications and need to be made public.
>>
>> This worked pre-20.11, but now with all the meson/ninja changes, making
>> these apps externally no longer works. To fix, we need to move the 
>> header
>> file with the API definitions for the channel commands public, and 
>> rename
>> the functions accordingly.
>>
>> The main change is to rename channel_commands.h to
>> rte_power_guest_channel.h so that it gets picked up by the installer and
>> copied to /usr/local/include. Other changes include renaming #defines to
>> have RTE_ at the beginning instead of CPU_. Finally we refactor the code
>> to work with those changes.
>>
>> ---
>> v2 changes
>>    - re-worked from monolithic patch to a 6 patch patchset for easier 
>> review
>>
>> [PATCH v2 1/6] power: create guest channel public header file
>> [PATCH v2 2/6] power: make channel msg functions public
>> [PATCH v2 3/6] power: rename public structs
>> [PATCH v2 4/6] power: rename defines
>> [PATCH v2 5/6] power: add new header file to export list
>> [PATCH v2 6/6] power: clean up includes
>>
>
> Just a general question: wouldn't it be better to move this stuff 
> entirely into sample app and not bother with keeping it in the 
> library? There is precedent - ethtool app has a "library" and an 
> "application" part, i think you should be able to move it out of the 
> library and into the sample app entirely without too much trouble, as 
> code looks to be fairly self-contained.
>

Agreed, that's a great idea. I could have a common lib under 
examples/vm_power_manager, then two apps, vm_power_manager and 
guest_cli. That would keep everything nicely local, and not expose the 
channel API publicly. The only reason we were making it public was to 
allow "make" to work, so that's not a good enought reason, tbh. I'll 
throw a prototype together today.

Thanks,
Dave.