22/07/2019 20:34, Stephen Hemminger: > On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 19:31:08 +0200 > Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote: > > > 22/07/2019 19:13, Stephen Hemminger: > > > Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote: > > > > Are the constructors run on dlopen of the bus driver? > > > > > > Yes, constructors are run on dlopen. > > > But application should not have to ask DPDK to dlopen the bus devices. > > > > > > The core principle is that dynamic build of DPDK should act the same as > > > old > > > statically linked DPDK. Otherwise, the user experience is even worse, and > > > all > > > the example documentation is wrong. > > > > OK, this is where I wanted to bring the discussion. > > You are arguing against a design which is in DPDK from some early days. > > So this is an interesting discussion to have. > > Do we want to change the "plugin model" we have? > > Or do we want to simply drop this model (dlopen calls) > > and replace it with strong dynamic linking? > > I argue that examples should work the same with dynamic linking. > This used to work before the break out of the bus model, so it is a bug.
The PCI support was part of EAL, yes, but the device drivers were plugins and already required the -d option. > For distributions, this also matters. Linking with -ldpdk which is a linker > script should work. There is no longer this linker script with meson.