From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] eal: Don't fail secondary if primary is missing tailqs Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2016 19:09:14 +0200 Message-ID: <7491622.GqnA43pcBO@xps13> References: <20160922204637.GA3166@labs.hpe.com> <20161005164906.GB11912@labs.hpe.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, David Marchand , Sergio Gonzalez Monroy , olivier.matz@6wind.com, David Hunt To: jean.tourrilhes@hpe.com Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f41.google.com (mail-wm0-f41.google.com [74.125.82.41]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F76C2A1A for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 19:09:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f41.google.com with SMTP id k125so279028162wma.1 for ; Wed, 05 Oct 2016 10:09:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20161005164906.GB11912@labs.hpe.com> 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" 2016-10-05 09:49, Jean Tourrilhes: > On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 09:58:01AM +0200, David Marchand wrote: > > 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. Probably that you would have some aligned builds if Snort was using a pkg-config approach to link DPDK. I cannot commit but I would like to generate some pkg-config files in the DPDK build system to ease linking from external applications. > > 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. I don't know why such a complex function (rte_mempool_register_ops) is called inside a constructor. Maybe that's the main problem.