Re: error in testpmd when CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_SHARED_LIB=y

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>]

2017-04-13 12:11, Shreyansh Jain:
> On Thursday 13 April 2017 01:25 AM, Olivier MATZ wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 14:31:56 +0200
> > Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 2017-04-12 11:31, Richardson, Bruce:
> >>>
> 
> [...]
> 
> >>
> >> I think the default mempool could be linked.
> >> I don't know how easy it is to transform
> >> 	CONFIG_RTE_MBUF_DEFAULT_MEMPOOL_OPS="ring_mp_mc"
> >> into
> >> 	-lrte_mempool_ring
> >>
> >> Anyone for a patch?
> >
> > This is the default mempool for the mbufs, selected when using the
> > function rte_pktmbuf_pool_create().
> >
> > For non-mbuf mempools, the default is to use the ring handler (see
> > in rte_mempool_create()).
> >
> > So if we want option 2-, it looks that moving this line in rte.app.mk
> > above, outside the if (shared build), would do the job:
> >
> > _LDLIBS-$(CONFIG_RTE_DRIVER_MEMPOOL_RING)   += -lrte_mempool_ring
> >
> > I think both 2- and 3- are acceptable. People using the shared library
> > mode should already provide all the .so in a known location, so that
> > they are loaded by default. This is needed for the PMDs for instance.
> >
> 
> I can send the patch;
> before that, should this fact, that ring is included by default, is to 
> be documented somewhere?

Yes good idea.
Instead of "included", you could say "linked" without the need for -d option.

But actually, the mempool drivers are not documented.
We should totally update this section:
	http://dpdk.org/doc/guides/prog_guide/mempool_lib.html#mempool-handlers
So it should be another patch.