Re: [PATCH v5] build: prevent accidentally building without NUMA support

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

15/06/2023 16:38, Bruce Richardson:
> When libnuma development package is missing on a system, DPDK can still
> be built but will be missing much-needed support for NUMA memory
> management. This may later cause issues at runtime if the resulting
> binary is run on a NUMA system.
> 
> We can reduce the incidence of such runtime errors by ensuring that, for
> native builds*, libnuma is present - unless the user actually specifies
> via "max_numa_nodes" that they don't require NUMA support. Having this
> as an error condition is also in keeping with what is documented in the
> Linux GSG doc, where libnuma is listed as a requirement for building
> DPDK [1].
> 
> * NOTE: cross-compilation builds have a different logic set, with a
>   separate "numa" value indicating if numa support is necessary.
> 
> [1] https://doc.dpdk.org/guides-23.03/linux_gsg/sys_reqs.html
> 
> Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>
> 
> ---
> V5: Rebase on main, since dependencies merged
> 
> V4: Add Depends-on tag so CI picks up dependency
> 
> V3:
> - install 32-bit libnuma packages on CI systems [thanks to David
>   for the changes]
> - split the patch out of the previous patchset, so it can be tracked
>   separately from the more minor fixup changes.
> 
> V2: Limit check to linux only

Is the test ci/Intel-compilation fixed?
Could you send a new version for testing the CI?