From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ye Xiaolong <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] net/af_xdp: introduce AF_XDP PMD
	driver
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 10:45:59 +0800
Message-ID: <20190325024559.GB35864@intel.com>
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>
 <1553429237.20876.3.camel@debian.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Qi Zhang <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>,
 "Karlsson, Magnus" <magnus.karlsson@intel.com>
To: Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga17.intel.com (mga17.intel.com [192.55.52.151])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6587C10A3
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 03:50:18 +0100 (CET)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1553429237.20876.3.camel@debian.org>
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 03/24, Luca Boccassi wrote:
>On Sun, 2019-03-17 at 11:34 +0800, Ye Xiaolong wrote:
>> On 03/02, Ye Xiaolong wrote:
>> > > >  _LDLIBS-$(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_PMD_AF_PACKET)  +=
>> > > > -lrte_pmd_af_packet
>> > > > +_LDLIBS-$(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_PMD_AF_XDP)     +=
>> > > > -lrte_pmd_af_xdp
>> > > > -lelf -lbpf
>> > > 
>> > > Are symbols from libelf being used by the PMD?
>> > 
>> > Hmm, it is a leftover of RFC, libelf is no longer needed in this
>> > version, will
>> > remove it in next version.
>> > 
>> 
>> Correction, libelf is needed for libbpf, so we still need to keep
>> it. 
>
>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?
>

Yes, that's the case. without the libelf, it would have build error as below,
and these symbols are used in static functions of libbpf.

/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.5/../../../../lib64/libbpf.so: undefined reference to `elf_nextscn'
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.5/../../../../lib64/libbpf.so: undefined reference to `elf_rawdata'
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.5/../../../../lib64/libbpf.so: undefined reference to `elf_memory'
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.5/../../../../lib64/libbpf.so: undefined reference to `gelf_getrel'
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.5/../../../../lib64/libbpf.so: undefined reference to `elf_strptr'
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.5/../../../../lib64/libbpf.so: undefined reference to `elf_end'
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.5/../../../../lib64/libbpf.so: undefined reference to `elf_getscn'
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.5/../../../../lib64/libbpf.so: undefined reference to `elf_begin'
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.5/../../../../lib64/libbpf.so: undefined reference to `gelf_getsym'
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.5/../../../../lib64/libbpf.so: undefined reference to `elf_version'
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.5/../../../../lib64/libbpf.so: undefined reference to `gelf_getehdr'
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.5/../../../../lib64/libbpf.so: undefined reference to `elf_getdata'
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.5/../../../../lib64/libbpf.so: undefined reference to `gelf_getshdr'

Thanks,
Xiaolong
>-- 
>Kind regards,
>Luca Boccassi