[ovs-dev] [PATCH dpdk-latest v4] build: Add support for DPDK meson build.
Pai G, Sunil
sunil.pai.g at intel.com
Fri Sep 11 15:14:20 UTC 2020
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ilya Maximets <i.maximets at ovn.org>
> Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 8:14 PM
> To: Stokes, Ian <ian.stokes at intel.com>; Pai G, Sunil <sunil.pai.g at intel.com>;
> dev at openvswitch.org
> Cc: i.maximets at ovn.org; david.marchand at redhat.com; Richardson, Bruce
> <bruce.richardson at intel.com>; christian.ehrhardt at canonical.com;
> i.maximets at ovn.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH dpdk-latest v4] build: Add support for DPDK meson
> On 9/11/20 4:33 PM, Stokes, Ian wrote:
> >> Make based build is deprecated in DPDK. Meson based build to be used
> >> for future DPDK releases.
> >> This updates travis, configure script and documentation for using
> >> DPDK Meson with OVS.
> >> Tested-at:
> >> https://travis-ci.org/github/Sunil-Pai-G/ovs-copy/builds/723510063
> >> Signed-off-by: Sunil Pai G <sunil.pai.g at intel.com>
> > Thanks Sunil, I've applied this to dpdk-latest. With the deadlines for v1 for
> DPDK 20.11 being today I think it's prudent to get the dpdk-latest build
> running again.
> Thanks, Ian.
> I think it's good to have dpdk-latest wokring again.
> However, this patch will need some changes that will need to be done
> before moving this to master branch. Could be done as follow up change
> with squashing before pushing to master.
> Main point is that, IIUC, this patch changes default build configuration from
> static linking to dynamic which it should not.
Hi Ilya ,
Before this change , when using DPDK meson build with OVS , I saw that DPDK shared libraries are used by default
even when asked for static because of the --whole-archive and --no-whole-archive flags getting jumbled by the libtool.
I wasn’t sure if I had to change this behavior, hence retained it. :)
I will send out another patch addressing this along with the other comments on this patch when they are available.
> And the documentation for --with-dpdk configuration knob is confusing, i.e.
> it's not aligned with the actual code, If I'm not mistaken.
I would be happy to make it as simple as possible. Suggestions are welcome :)
> There are few other minor comments too. I'll write them down once I'll find
> some time. Just wanted to highlight big behavioral change for now.
Sure , will wait on your feedback.
Thanks and regards
More information about the dev