From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jean Tourrilhes <jt@labs.hpe.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] mempool: Add sanity check when
 secondary link in less mempools than primary
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 08:39:34 -0800
Message-ID: <20161118163934.GA7779@labs.hpe.com>
References: <20161028183705.GA6907@labs.hpe.com>
 <838c508b-c7d2-7462-6029-e88386e67959@6wind.com>
 <20161110223241.GA18422@labs.hpe.com>
 <f3c4a810-1de1-6165-5c5b-25eca42c11bd@6wind.com>
 <20161115232722.GA18961@labs.hpe.com>
 <e451c41b-6773-975e-9145-2f386237ab49@6wind.com>
Reply-To: jean.tourrilhes@hpe.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>,
 David Marchand <david.marchand@6wind.com>,
 Sergio Gonzalez Monroy <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>
To: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>, dev@dpdk.org
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from g4t3426.houston.hpe.com (g4t3426.houston.hpe.com
 [15.241.140.75]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64B022C10
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 17:39:40 +0100 (CET)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e451c41b-6773-975e-9145-2f386237ab49@6wind.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 04:11:12PM +0100, Olivier Matz wrote:
> Hi Jean,
> 
> 
> Do you mind if we put back this conversation on the ML?

	Oh, I forgot to do it ? I intended to. Bummer. Please do so.

> I think your example shows that there is no linker magic: you just
> need the same linker flags for dpdk libraries than in the dpdk
> framework. I suppose we need something in the build framework
> to provide these flags externally,

	Good luck integrating that in all foreign build system (I'm
looking at you, Snort).

> but I don't think we need to patch mempool for that.

	This sanity check is just that, a sanity check. I don't
understand what's bad about a sanity check, it does not change
functionality, it does not fix anything and just warn users about
those issues.
	Please look at the patch itself at face value.

> Regards,
> Olivier

	Regards,

	Jean