Re: DPDK libs as one big shared object

On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 05:16:10PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 26/06/2025 14:53, Stephen Hemminger: > > On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:01:45 +0200 > > Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > 18/06/2025 09:39, Morten Brørup: > > > > > Why are we still building one .so file per DPDK library, instead of > > >

Re: DPDK libs as one big shared object

26/06/2025 14:53, Stephen Hemminger: > On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:01:45 +0200 > Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 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

Re: DPDK libs as one big shared object

On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:01:45 +0200 Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 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 indi

Re: DPDK libs as one big shared object

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

RE: DPDK libs as one big shared object

> 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. > > Wouldn't building one big dpdk.so eliminate the problems wi

DPDK libs as one big shared object

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. Wouldn't building one big dpdk.so eliminate the problems with circula