From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy Subject: Re: [PATCH] mk: fix acl library static linking Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:02:15 +0100 Message-ID: <2994f200-70c4-3fe2-5976-fc1799271430@intel.com> References: <1467285021-103920-1-git-send-email-sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com> <5547616.scaE5dMnT7@xps13> <1776198.xo6Bm4C5fO@xps13> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: Thomas Monjalon Return-path: Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F28B2B9A for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 16:02:26 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <1776198.xo6Bm4C5fO@xps13> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 30/06/2016 13:44, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2016-06-30 13:04, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy: >> On 30/06/2016 12:38, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >>> Does it need to be commented in rte.app.mk? >>> The other libs are in whole-archive to support dlopen of drivers. >>> But the problem here is not because of a driver use. >> There seem to be a bunch of libraries under --whole-archive scope that >> are not >> PMDs, ie. cfgfile, cmdline... >> >> What is the criteria? > The criteria is a bit vague. We must try to include only libs which can > be used by a driver. > cmdline should probably not be there. > Does it make sense to use cfgfile in a driver? maybe yes. So as it is, ACL autotest is broken when building static libs (non-combined). For combined libs we usually wrap libdpdk.a with --whole-archive, thus it is not an issue. Just thinking a bit more about the 'dlopen of drivers' case you mentioned before, shouldn't the driver have proper dependencies and therefore need shared DPDK libraries? What does happen if binary/app and driver are built against different library versions? Where does it say that we do support this use case? Sergio