From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] net/af_xdp: introduce AF_XDP PMD
 driver
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2019 12:07:17 +0000
Message-ID: <1553429237.20876.3.camel@debian.org>
References: <20190301080947.91086-1-xiaolong.ye@intel.com>
 <20190301080947.91086-2-xiaolong.ye@intel.com>
 <e48b25c52b586c330fa035a8bc7cb3e05c848071.camel@debian.org>
 <20190302081407.GD100586@intel.com> <20190317033425.GA103486@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Qi Zhang <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
To: Ye Xiaolong <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm1-f67.google.com (mail-wm1-f67.google.com
 [209.85.128.67]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D698E1B857
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Sun, 24 Mar 2019 13:07:19 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-wm1-f67.google.com with SMTP id y197so6249394wmd.0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Sun, 24 Mar 2019 05:07:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20190317033425.GA103486@intel.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Sun, 2019-03-17 at 11:34 +0800, Ye Xiaolong wrote:
> On 03/02, Ye Xiaolong wrote:
> > > > =C2=A0_LDLIBS-$(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_PMD_AF_PACKET)=C2=A0=C2=A0+=3D
> > > > -lrte_pmd_af_packet
> > > > +_LDLIBS-$(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_PMD_AF_XDP)=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=
=A0+=3D
> > > > -lrte_pmd_af_xdp
> > > > -lelf -lbpf
> > >=20
> > > Are symbols from libelf being used by the PMD?
> >=20
> > Hmm, it is a leftover of RFC, libelf is no longer needed in this
> > version, will
> > remove it in next version.
> >=20
>=20
> Correction, libelf is needed for libbpf, so we still need to keep
> it.=C2=A0

If libbpf needs libelf for its internal usage, it should be linked
against it itself. Unless symbols from libelf are used in static
functions defined in libbpf's public headers. Is this the case?

--=20
Kind regards,
Luca Boccassi