From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jean Tourrilhes <jt@labs.hpe.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] eal: Don't fail secondary if primary is
 missing tailqs
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 09:49:06 -0700
Message-ID: <20161005164906.GB11912@labs.hpe.com>
References: <20160922204637.GA3166@labs.hpe.com>
 <20160922211728.GA3124@labs.hpe.com>
 <20493efb-6822-0847-3685-819c769e5ad2@intel.com>
 <20161004165930.GA2012@labs.hpe.com>
 <CALwxeUtkPsQop3zr4RnS7Y8bwKzar6DaRxCPWCX_trgc4kMm_w@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: jean.tourrilhes@hpe.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>,
 "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
To: David Marchand <david.marchand@6wind.com>
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 0009D2BF7
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed,  5 Oct 2016 18:49:08 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALwxeUtkPsQop3zr4RnS7Y8bwKzar6DaRxCPWCX_trgc4kMm_w@mail.gmail.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 Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 09:58:01AM +0200, David Marchand wrote:
> Hello,

	Hi there,

> 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.

> 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.

> Primary and secondary processes build their local tailq entries list
> in constructors (so far, I can't see how this is wrong).
> "Later", each process updates this list with the actual pointer to the
> lists by looking at the shared memory in rte_eal_init (calling
> rte_eal_tailqs_init).
> 
> What matters is that secondary tailqs are a subset of the primary tailqs.

	Which is not the case for me, I have secondary including all
tailqs, and primary only having a subset.
	Check here :
		http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-September/047329.html

> I still have some trouble understanding what you are trying to do.

	Having things work ;-)

> As Sergio asked, can you come up with a simplified example/use case ?

	Not trivial. I'll see what I can do.

> Thanks.
> 
> 
> -- 
> David Marchand

	Regards,

	Jean