DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] config: add default linux configuration
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 18:13:49 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <10873835.umk2ANPAO0@xps13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160212165932.GA26328@sivlogin002.ir.intel.com>

2016-02-12 16:59, Ferruh Yigit:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 04:04:07PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 2016-02-12 14:31, Panu Matilainen:
> > > On 01/28/2016 04:31 PM, Bernard Iremonger wrote:
> > > > add config/defconfig_x86_64-default-linuxapp-gcc file.
> > > 
> > > There was a related discussion back in March, see
> > > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-March/014626.html
> > > 
> > > I intended to go with that and submit patch(es) but the amount of 
> > > duplication and new files gets mind-numbing when you make them for all 
> > > existing targets. In other words, this approach doesn't scale.
> > > 
> > > Thomas, I remember seeing a plan to include a configure script in DPDK 
> > > many times in past months. Do you have something specific in mind, ie 
> > > actually use autoconf or just a custom hand-written script named 
> > > "configure" that roughly resembles autoconf configure or...?
> > 
> > A script named "configure" looks fine.
> > Bruce introduced the idea of calling "make config" in the script:
> > 	http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-October/026256.html
> > Maybe it is a good start to move forward.
> > I think we have to choose between a script and a kconfig approach giving
> > the menus GUIs as bonus.
> > 
> Another thing kconfig can help is to resolve dependencies, harder to make this with a
> script. Currently we already have dependencies, although not complex, and resolved
> within makefile.

Dependencies are not so well resolved currently.
We have internal and external dependencies.
The internal ones would be better resolved with kconfig or a script.
The external dependencies are often managed by autotools but I'm sure
we prefer have a clean script instead of this beast ;)

> I believe correct place to solve them is a configuration tool so that makefiles or
> source files can be clean.

I think a configuration tool/script must help to make a working config.
But do you really think we should remove the gatekeepers in Makefiles?

  reply	other threads:[~2016-02-12 17:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-01-28 14:31 Bernard Iremonger
2016-02-12 12:31 ` Panu Matilainen
2016-02-12 15:04   ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-02-12 16:59     ` Ferruh Yigit
2016-02-12 17:13       ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]
2016-02-12 17:23         ` Ferruh Yigit
2016-02-16 11:16 ` Ferruh Yigit
2016-02-16 11:23   ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-02-16 12:08     ` Ferruh Yigit
2016-02-17 10:42       ` Iremonger, Bernard

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=10873835.umk2ANPAO0@xps13 \
    --to=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).