14/02/2022 11:45, Bruce Richardson: > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 10:22:08AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 14/02/2022 10:13, Tyler Retzlaff: > > > while the driver api is "internal" we agreed some time ago that drivers > > > could be built external to the dpdk tree. by enabling the meson setup > > > option -Denable_driver_sdk=true. > > > > > > it was agreed that the driver api was internal and would attract no > > > binary compatibility support which was fine. this change has now > > > imposed a further restriction that out of tree drivers have to be > > > authored in C only as non-C++ compatible code will invariably leak into > > > the internal structures. > > > > > > you won't allow us to build C++ drivers in the dpdk tree and it seems > > > now you are preventing building of C++ drivers outside of the tree too. > > > > That's the problem of non-written assumptions, they are unknown or > > forgotten. > > Did we agree to support out-of-tree drivers in C++? > > > > We really need to make things clear and written in documentation. > > > > > could we please re-evaluate this. > > > > Yes we can re-evaluate. > > What is the list of impacted files? > > > Hacking meson files a bit, the list of SDK header files is reported as below. > > /Bruce > > Message: SDK headers: > Message: ethdev_driver.h > Message: ethdev_pci.h > Message: ethdev_vdev.h > Message: cryptodev_pmd.h > Message: eventdev_pmd.h > Message: eventdev_pmd_pci.h > Message: eventdev_pmd_vdev.h > Message: eventdev_trace.h > Message: event_timer_adapter_pmd.h > Message: rte_dmadev_pmd.h > Message: vdpa_driver.h
I see no harm in supporting C++ include of these headers. Any objection? Could we have a test in chkincs for the SDK headers?
