From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] mk: add sensible default target with defconfig Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2017 12:05:48 +0200 Message-ID: <7428277.FEDDLdAvNx@xps> References: <1495788764-37652-2-git-send-email-david.hunt@intel.com> <2651056.W04Ra9JkEP@xps> <6606996c-f7b1-439f-aa73-8aeaa585f062@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "shreyansh.jain@nxp.com" To: "Hunt, David" Return-path: Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20CFC2BC9 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 12:05:55 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <6606996c-f7b1-439f-aa73-8aeaa585f062@intel.com> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 04/08/2017 11:53, Hunt, David: > > On 4/8/2017 10:36 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 04/08/2017 10:22, Hunt, David: > >> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net] > >> 07/06/2017 16:37, David Hunt: > >>> Users can now use 'make defconfig' to generate a configuration using > >>> the most appropriate defaults for the current machine. > >>> > >>> > >>> arch taken from uname -m > >>> machine defaults to native > >>> execenv is taken from uname, Linux=linuxapp, otherwise bsdapp > >>> toolchain is taken from $CC -v to see which compiler to use > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: David Hunt > >>> Acked-by: Shreyansh Jain > >> Looks to be a good idea if it is really automatic. > >> > >>> + ${CC} -v 2>&1 | \ > >>> + grep " version " | cut -d ' ' -f 1) > >> Unfortunately, it depends on $CC which is not commonly exported. > >> What about defaulting to gcc? > >> > >>> - @echo "Configuration done" > >>> + @echo "Configuration done using "$(shell basename \ > >>> + $(RTE_CONFIG_TEMPLATE) | sed "s/defconfig_//g") > >> RTE_CONFIG_TEMPLATE is not defined in this patch (and I do not see the benefit in next patch). > >> > >> Thomas, > >> Does this mean that this patch is not going into this release? It has been acked for almost a month now, with no further comment. The one hour between your comment and the release of RC4 did not give me a reasonable amount of time to address your concerns. I also feel that the lack of comments in the last month should mean that the patch should be applied as is. If changes are required, I am happy to address in the next release. > > You're right, I'm very sorry not taking time to review it before. > > I think only the first patch should be integrated, without the comment for > > RTE_CONFIG_TEMPLATE. > > Opinion? > > OK, I would be OK with the first patch. However, I think the > RTE_CONFIG_TEMPLATE comment part of the patch is fine, we just tested it > here. It's only RTE_TEMPLATE I'm introducing in the second patch, nor > RTE_CONFIG_TEMPLATE. That existed before this patch set. So the echo > command in the first patch works fine, and shows the user what template > the script has used to configure itself. Ah OK I totally missed it :) > I could upload another patch with just the first patch (and the relevant > 2 lines from the docs patch) as a v4? Yes perfect