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 10:34:55 -0700
Message-ID: <20161005173455.GB12182@labs.hpe.com>
References: <20160922204637.GA3166@labs.hpe.com>
 <CALwxeUtkPsQop3zr4RnS7Y8bwKzar6DaRxCPWCX_trgc4kMm_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20161005164906.GB11912@labs.hpe.com> <7491622.GqnA43pcBO@xps13>
Reply-To: jean.tourrilhes@hpe.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, David Marchand <david.marchand@6wind.com>,
 Sergio Gonzalez Monroy <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>,
 olivier.matz@6wind.com, David Hunt <david.hunt@intel.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from g2t2353.austin.hpe.com (g2t2353.austin.hpe.com [15.233.44.26])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C5852A1A
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed,  5 Oct 2016 19:34:57 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7491622.GqnA43pcBO@xps13>
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 07:09:14PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 
> Probably that you would have some aligned builds if Snort was using
> a pkg-config approach to link DPDK.

	I seriously doubt it, but maybe there is some deep linker
magic that would pick the appropriate set of constructor.

> > 	For tailq, I agree. For mempool constructors, order do matter.
> 
> I don't know why such a complex function (rte_mempool_register_ops) is
> called inside a constructor. Maybe that's the main problem.

	No. The problem is that the list of constructors linked by the
linker in each binary is different, whereas DPDK expect them to be the
same.
	Regards,

	Jean