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

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

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.