Le 12/05/2016 à 09:02 PM, Mike Holmes a écrit : > I like this patch in principle, but it has to go into master first. > > I think that if you dont set ODP_LIB_NAME and you get something that is > expected to ab ABI compatible is good, if I add a platform name I would > expect it to be less portable. > I like that odp-dpdk can reuse more of Linux generic infrastructure making it > even cheaper to support odp-dpdk and also possibly newer flavors such as > odp-cloud or other derivatives that make a spin on odp-linux for a particular > use case. > > Mike >
Good. that's the goal of a lot of my patches ;) The only things I'm not relly happy with in this patch is the name "ODP_LIB_NAME". Wouldn't ODP_LIB_FLAVOR makes a little more sense ? Do you think I should remost this series on master and merge it with the "[lng-odp] [PATCH 0/4] Make configure.ac generic" series? Although it changes different things, the goal is one and the same: make it easier to add/build platform reusing all the build/test infrastructure of linux-generic. Nicolas > On 2 December 2016 at 09:09, Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin <nmo...@kalray.eu > <mailto:nmo...@kalray.eu>> wrote: > > > > Le 12/02/2016 à 02:52 PM, Mike Holmes a écrit : >> >> >> On 2 December 2016 at 08:50, Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin >> <nmo...@kalray.eu <mailto:nmo...@kalray.eu>> wrote: >> >> >> >> Le 12/02/2016 à 02:45 PM, Maxim Uvarov a écrit : >> > On 12/02/16 16:34, Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin wrote: >> >> >> >> Le 12/02/2016 à 02:30 PM, Maxim Uvarov a écrit : >> >>> That needs to go to master first, than if needed back-ported to >> Monarch. >> >> Ok. >> >> >> >>> Nicolas, if you name library differently how will application >> know how >> >>> to link with it? >> >> 1) We provide a template makefile for all ODP apps. >> >> 2) We don't have ABI compat with multiple libs as we build for >> our architecture, running our own OS with no dynamic library support >> >> >> >> We could use the same name as you do, but as we don't have any >> Linux running underneath, it doesn't make much sense to me. >> >> >> >> BTW, why did you rename those libraries? >> > >> > word 'generic' was confusing for some people. >> > >> > Maxim. >> >> Renaming the platform name is one thing. But why did libodp had to >> change to libodp-linux ? >> >> >> It is not ABI compatible was the rational, we are workign on that. >> >> We need libodp to be ABI compatible and then libodpKalray etc to be non >> abi >> >> Mike >> >> > > So if I understood well: > libodp => libodp-linux because of the static inlines/struct in the > linux-generic potentially break ABI compatibility with another implementation. > libodp is reserved for someone without any platform specific > inlines/structs exported. > > I still think my series makes sense here. The only change i'd make is to > move the "-" before the suffix to ODP_LIB_NAME too. > This ways a full ABI compatible platform sets ODP_LIB_NAME="" => it has > libodp.(so|a) > Other platform add their suffix depending on who they are compatible with > (-linux, -mppa, etc.) > > > > > -- > Mike Holmes > Program Manager - Linaro Networking Group > Linaro.org <http://www.linaro.org/>* **│ *Open source software for ARM SoCs > "Work should be fun and collaborative, the rest follows" >
