From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Ciobotaru Subject: Re: Question about adding a new EAL Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 23:56:24 +0300 Message-ID: <9d7c6bbf-4c14-d68e-3b17-87ef73a71303@gmail.com> References: <1943193.bOZbQYoKI2@xps> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "Wiles, Keith" To: Thomas Monjalon Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f67.google.com (mail-wm0-f67.google.com [74.125.82.67]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7B6A1C0B for ; Tue, 22 May 2018 22:56:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f67.google.com with SMTP id o78-v6so3470060wmg.0 for ; Tue, 22 May 2018 13:56:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1943193.bOZbQYoKI2@xps> Content-Language: en-US List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Guys, thank you for the info so far (sorry about the HTML thing). I will put some further insight/closure into this thread. So, my query started from the fact that when developing a new EAL in DPDK using an external toolchain and/or for a new OS, the "common" (generic) part of the EAL is actually Linux/BSD bound: /...// START OF EXCERPT////dpdk/build/include/rte_eal.h:15:19: fatal error: sched.h: No such file or directory////#include ////^////compilation terminated.////...// END OF EXCERPT/// Above I'm building (via cross toolchain) my new "xyzapp" (with its own EAL rte_*.c files) but with the inherited common headers (since the EAL/common master Makefile makes build-generated symbolic links in my build dir). So for now, I identified two quick options: - Modify the EAL headers where needed. In this case, I would remove includes such as ones above from the EAL headers, but it would probably break current supported EALs - Modify the EAL build sub-system to export my "xyzapp" (re)implemented EAL headers instead of the common ones (keeping the API, but fixing the "app" toolchain/exec-env dependencies). Basically all P headers that define the EAL would be split into M "common/generic" headers and N "app" re-implemented headers. Thank you! Alex On 22-May-18 11:18 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 22/05/2018 21:59, Wiles, Keith: >> You may want to do an RFC email subject to discuss your ideas on changing EAL code first to eliminate extra work. > Yes, definitely, RFC with first ideas can help to discuss. > > One more pointer, Windows support in progress: > http://dpdk.org/browse/draft/dpdk-draft-windows/ > >