From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Hunt, David" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] mk: add sensible default target with defconfig Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 10:53:45 +0100 Message-ID: <6606996c-f7b1-439f-aa73-8aeaa585f062@intel.com> References: <1495788764-37652-2-git-send-email-david.hunt@intel.com> <2019184.UUXt4e9AVR@xps> <3F5BA2D9419A984DBB40DB5CFACBB36D1F9D8F2F@IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com> <2651056.W04Ra9JkEP@xps> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "shreyansh.jain@nxp.com" To: Thomas Monjalon Return-path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99E322C55 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 11:53:49 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <2651056.W04Ra9JkEP@xps> Content-Language: en-US List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 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. I could upload another patch with just the first patch (and the relevant 2 lines from the docs patch) as a v4? Regards, Dave.