[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 19/20] net/sfc: support flow action COUNT in transfer rules

[Andrew Rybchenko]

On 7/4/21 10:45 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 02/07/2021 14:53, Andrew Rybchenko:
>> On 7/2/21 3:30 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> 02/07/2021 10:43, Andrew Rybchenko:
>>>> On 7/1/21 4:05 PM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>>>> On 7/1/21 3:34 PM, David Marchand wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 11:22 AM Andrew Rybchenko
>>>>>> <andrew.rybchenko at oktetlabs.ru> wrote:
>>>>>>> The build works fine for me on FC34, but it has
>>>>>>> libatomic-11.1.1-3.fc34.x86_64 installed.
>>>>>> I first produced the issue on my "old" FC32.
>>>>>> Afaics, for FC33 and later, gcc now depends on libatomic and the
>>>>>> problem won't be noticed.
>>>>>> FC32 and before are EOL, but I then reproduced the issue on RHEL 8
>>>>>> (and Intel CI reported it on Centos 8 too).
>>>>> I see. Thanks for the clarification.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd like to understand what we're trying to solve here.
>>>>>>> Are we trying to make meson to report the missing library
>>>>>>> correctly?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If so, I think I can do simple check using cc.links()
>>>>>>> which will fail if the library is not found. I'll
>>>>>>> test that it works as expected if the library is not
>>>>>>> completely installed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I tried below diff, and it works for me.
>>>>>> "works" as in net/sfc gets disabled without libatomic installed:
>>> [...]
>>>>>>  # for gcc compiles we need -latomic for 128-bit atomic ops
>>>>>>  if cc.get_id() == 'gcc'
>>>>>> +    code = '''#include <stdio.h>
>>>>>> +    void main() { printf("Atomilink me.\n"); }
>>>>>> +    '''
>>>>>> +    if not cc.links(code, args: '-latomic', name: 'libatomic link check')
>>>>>> +        build = false
>>>>>> +        reason = 'missing dependency, "libatomic"'
>>>>>> +        subdir_done()
>>>>>> +    endif
>>>>>>      ext_deps += cc.find_library('atomic')
>>>>>>  endif
>>>>> Many thanks, LGTM. I'll pick it up and add comments why
>>>>> it is checked this way.
>>>>>
>>>> I've send v4 with the problem fixed. However, I'm afraid
>>>> build test systems should be updated to have libatomic
>>>> correctly installed. Otherwise, they do not really check
>>>> net/sfc build.
>>> When testing on old systems, sfc won't be tested anymore after this patchset.
>>> On recent systems, sfc should be enabled I guess.
>>> I don't see how to manage better, sorry.
>>>
>> I see. I thought that it is possible to install missing
>> package on corresponding systems to make build coverage
>> better.
>>
>> Now I automatically test build on problematic distros
>> with previously missing packages installed. So I have
>> internal build coverage anyway.
> David asked for installing libatomic:
> https://inbox.dpdk.org/ci/CAJFAV8xCNBL4yEZU0c=dJGYS+13QM7Uz7e2qnUkMuM7eaKKw+Q@mail.gmail.com/
>
> We should wait for it to be installed otherwise ABI check will fail.

Yes, I see. Thanks.