From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: Fw: dpdk-armv7 - Build # 342 - Failure! Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 16:04:22 +0100 Message-ID: <2101263.CINWvX51Cb@xps13> References: <20160311123910.779f9c2e@jvn> <2098276.9k93xeoVuW@xps13> <56E2DBE3.4030309@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Jan Viktorin To: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f44.google.com (mail-wm0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE6B02C45 for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 16:06:06 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f44.google.com with SMTP id l68so21291776wml.1 for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:06:06 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <56E2DBE3.4030309@intel.com> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 2016-03-11 14:53, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy: > On 11/03/2016 13:33, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 2016-03-11 11:47, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy: > >> On 11/03/2016 11:39, Jan Viktorin wrote: > >>> Hello Sergio, > >>> > >>> I've detected a build regression for the ARMv7. It seems to me the > >>> source of the problem is the following commit: > >>> > >>> http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/commit/?id=d299106e8e31a622b3a1c1653f7795fa8a55860e > >>> > >>> The ipsec-secgw should be compiled only when LPM is enabled. See, eg. > >>> how the l3fwd-power example is done in examples/Makefile. > >> Right! > >> > >> Actually the app has dependencies on a few libraries, so I'll fix that. > > Please take the opportunity to move the crypto examples in the > > alphabetical order in this Makefile. Thanks > > > > > > So the fix is easy enough but I'm really not a fan of cluttering the > examples/Makefile ifeq checks > which would only avoid building ipsec-secgw if doing: > $ make examples > > but would still fail to build if doing something like: > $ make -C examples/ipsec-secgw If you explicitly want to build this example, it is normal to fail. > examples/Makefile: > +ifeq ($(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_ACL),y) > +ifeq ($(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_HASH),y) > +ifeq ($(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_LPM),y) > DIRS-$(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_CRYPTODEV) += ipsec-secgw > +endif > +endif > +endif You can do it in one line: ifeq ($(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_ACL)$(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_HASH)$(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_LPM),yyy) > Another way to achive this and also avoid building the app with 'make -C > ...' is something like this: > > examples/ipsec-secgw/Makefile: > +all: > +%: > > +ifeq ($(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_ACL),y) > +ifeq ($(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_HASH),y) > +ifeq ($(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_LPM),y) > +ifeq ($(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_CRYPTODEV),y) > include $(RTE_SDK)/mk/rte.extapp.mk > +endif > +endif > +endif > +endif No, as said above, you should not be smart here and let it fail. > Anyway, none of those are the right fix, which I think should be > something along the lines of Kconfig. Yes maybe one day... > Any preference? First one