Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/3] net/ixgbe: fix build issue

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

26/10/2017 14:59, Akhil Goyal:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> On 10/26/2017 6:03 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 26/10/2017 14:28, Radu Nicolau:
> >>
> >> On 10/26/2017 12:39 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >>> 26/10/2017 13:27, David Marchand:
> >>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Radu Nicolau <radu.nicolau@intel.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On 10/26/2017 11:36 AM, David Marchand wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Radu Nicolau <radu.nicolau@intel.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/ixgbe/Makefile
> >>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ixgbe/Makefile
> >>>>>>> +ifneq ($(MAKECMDGOALS),clean)
> >>>>>>> +ifneq ($(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_SECURITY),y)
> >>>>>>> +$(error "RTE_LIBRTE_SECURITY is required to build RTE_LIBRTE_IXGBE_PMD")
> >>>>>>> +endif
> >>>>>>> +endif
> >>>>>> This is a no go for me unless you explain how it is impossible to
> >>>>>> disable it in the code.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> It can be disabled in the code, but as far as I know there is a general push
> >>>>> back against having conditionally compiled code. I originally had the
> >>>>> security sections in ixgbe PMD isolated, but the feedback was to have them
> >>>>> always on.
> >>>> In my mind, this was to stop having features enabled per pmd (and stop
> >>>> the nightmare with 10 options in a pmd).
> >>>> Having features globally enabled for all or nothing is still
> >>>> acceptable, is it not ?
> >>> Yes there is a config option for rte_security,
> >>> and it is acceptable.
> >>> The code depending on it must be ifdef'ed.
> >>
> >> Given that both ixgbe and dpaa2_sec are now security enabled PMDs, I
> >> would go with Konstantin's proposal, have rte_security listed as a
> >> dependency (instead of the explicit check).
> > 
> > Please consider my request instead.
> > Until now we are ifdef'ing code to allow disabling any lib.
> > We are not going to change our mind during the last days of a release.
> > Please just fix it for now.
> 
> For dpaa2_sec we do not want to make the driver run without 
> rte_security. We do not see people using it without rte_security.

Why not?

> Will take the Makefile changes that Radu has done in 1st patch of this 
> series.

Is it really a lot to ifdef?

It is going to break compilation of DPDK for those who disable rte_security.