[dpdk-dev] [dpdk-users] DPDK 16.04 link changes cause PMD drivers to not be loaded

2016-04-22 Thread Panu Matilainen
On 04/21/2016 06:24 PM, Aurojit Panda wrote: > > > Thomas Monjalon wrote: >> 2016-04-21 08:01, Aurojit Panda: >>> Panu Matilainen wrote: >> [...] Again, PMDs are *plugins* that are *meant* to be loaded at runtime. That allows for all sorts of flexibility especially for packaging and

[dpdk-dev] [dpdk-users] DPDK 16.04 link changes cause PMD drivers to not be loaded

2016-04-21 Thread Thomas Monjalon
2016-04-21 08:01, Aurojit Panda: > Panu Matilainen wrote: [...] > > Again, PMDs are *plugins* that are *meant* to be loaded at runtime. > > That allows for all sorts of flexibility especially > > for packaging and shipping, at some extra cost in setup complexity. > > I am all for a plugin

[dpdk-dev] [dpdk-users] DPDK 16.04 link changes cause PMD drivers to not be loaded

2016-04-21 Thread Aurojit Panda
[The original report is included below for your convenience] Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2016-04-21 08:01, Aurojit Panda: >> Panu Matilainen wrote: > [...] >>> Again, PMDs are *plugins* that are *meant* to be loaded at runtime. >>> That allows for all sorts of flexibility especially >>> for

[dpdk-dev] [dpdk-users] DPDK 16.04 link changes cause PMD drivers to not be loaded

2016-04-21 Thread Aurojit Panda
Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2016-04-21 08:01, Aurojit Panda: >> Panu Matilainen wrote: > [...] >>> Again, PMDs are *plugins* that are *meant* to be loaded at runtime. >>> That allows for all sorts of flexibility especially >>> for packaging and shipping, at some extra cost in setup complexity. >> I

[dpdk-dev] [dpdk-users] DPDK 16.04 link changes cause PMD drivers to not be loaded

2016-04-21 Thread Aurojit Panda
[Cross-posting to dev] Panu Matilainen wrote: > On 04/20/2016 05:26 PM, Aurojit Panda wrote: >> I am sorry that is a bit unintuitive considering: >> >> (a) This behavior differs between static and shared builds of DPDK. >> - In fact this behavior was identical in 2.2, and even in mainline >>