18/06/2025 09:39, Morten Brørup: > > Why are we still building one .so file per DPDK library, instead of just > > building one big dpdk.so for all DPDK libraries? > > I think it's legacy from when DPDK libraries were versioned individually, > > and > > thus not relevant anymore.
I think it helps with selective packaging. > > Wouldn't building one big dpdk.so eliminate the problems with circular > > dependencies between DPDK libraries? > > Obviously, the source code should remain organized as individual directories > per library. > I'm only suggesting linking them all into one object, so any DPDK lib can > call any function in any other DPDK lib. > > Perhaps only the core libs or always_enable libs should be linked into one > object. > > Here's an example benefit: > I'm currently trying to convince the PMU lib author to make PMU depend on EAL > [1], so missing error handling of sysconf(_SC_PAGESIZE) can be in the EAL for > all uses, instead of copy-pasting sysconf(_SC_PAGESIZE) error handling to > everywhere it is used. > But this is difficult with the dependency chain for the patch adding PMU to > Trace: Trace depends on PMU, and EAL depends on Trace, therefore EAL depends > on PMU. > > [1]: > https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/98cbd80474fa8b44bf855df32c47dc35e9f...@smartserver.smartshare.dk/ I don't see a problem to copy-paste in the few libs not depending on EAL. The real solution for EAL dependencies is to split it more. The malloc, init & logic part should be in separate libraries, depending on the real low-level EAL. Then all libs could depend on the low-level EAL, and avoid copy-pasting.
