From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Hall Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] Update/Improve build system Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 13:50:00 -0700 Message-ID: <20141030205000.GA9956@mhcomputing.net> References: <91383E96CE459D47BCE92EFBF5CE73B004E97FFB@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org" To: "Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <91383E96CE459D47BCE92EFBF5CE73B004E97FFB-kPTMFJFq+rEMvF1YICWikbfspsVTdybXVpNB7YpNyf8@public.gmane.org> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 09:18:23AM +0000, Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio wrote: > I would say that D) is a good balance, although not being the simplest. A, or D. Depending on things such as, "If you run the DPDK on Random Platform X," where X could be something like Power CPUs or other weird stuff, will all of the things needed for the Combined Lib 1) be compilable, 2) be able to load w/o errors. For example, I could see probe ctor functions from various PMD's blowing up on unsupported hardware. Like how the rte_pmd_virtio had issues when I tried it on my VM system. If we think we can make sure no platform specific stuff breaks when it ends up in Combined Lib A then A is probably the easiest for all. Matthew.