From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Received: from mail-wm0-f47.google.com (mail-wm0-f47.google.com [74.125.82.47])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D60C56CC1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 11:50:46 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-wm0-f47.google.com with SMTP id k204so114757536wmk.0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 02:50:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
 h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent:in-reply-to
 :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding;
 bh=1rGQLkG6hEVoyah2sW/5BEDXFUfWsz6QyVKbYU0SkfM=;
 b=WBNbuq+uYrZjpN0AN+gkpUCNvzOtRGfdya8XkG97dzr8ig23mYocsqwwNfZxAwESl/
 ZqXj/GHzaF/HjuRQiBir/7ebUGg18WmJ4foLEX2y/g69GhKGQ5HCO6tXChBAJy8iWV9H
 4QvLvqa2ID4fMXWIyJFnT/mMeTsRa9WVfaGCvBnPZAmBQ1PVqKDLTa7k2MqazZEqMJhw
 2JCGT8DwjAbWgQtYaU5CPRw2Bsm8Ns6y9Caeu8SWjnANpjzbEpSy4ev9jmHgZRdvDxml
 DnARvbX3f8SsSvlEY3XIsmG4gonWZ5kZUKQy1x5ap6PZ0wcIo2vA6YhmRGgJ5H4YFEeb
 cRyA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
 h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent
 :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding;
 bh=1rGQLkG6hEVoyah2sW/5BEDXFUfWsz6QyVKbYU0SkfM=;
 b=KcNL1VGviYQJzc0udEjVkNQMHBxOosUMAbtX2tw0XGO8TGPKm4w4Xo/185+V8QtJtN
 2M4xYqB/7gX0mLe55atEUfpv+b1BOVLbMMR47p8VjHAX7nCRrG7ppDzjkKep88c1SKLX
 kQLNcghNXAC/o83Mx1FFHKXEziSn39kmN/TeWZ1OE3WtP45jaBBMIcKAuOBMx5hMw90U
 SbFn9qUSHrzB/AqPlp4Tr8xCySkl9dQRp9VPXwaqdVt8LcDcy97lbYRqyg7QToFm/Ups
 Fyw3ULUeJkHouX5ehBmuxR+8wjjtiuW4jSBVzgKmF6D/46HDGscO7/3KxeLLodkxzmPZ
 bV8A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tI/UVkoQ7AiBoi4FuZ7KBN4YYwIVCn+UCVwM4jvwbqP6kUDXomOEeOcEa1qK5JVnX8X
X-Received: by 10.194.18.34 with SMTP id t2mr5142167wjd.180.1465897846512;
 Tue, 14 Jun 2016 02:50:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from xps13.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net. [77.134.203.184])
 by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id bh4sm2160188wjc.43.2016.06.14.02.50.45
 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
 Tue, 14 Jun 2016 02:50:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
To: Jan Viktorin <viktorin@rehivetech.com>
Cc: David Hunt <david.hunt@intel.com>, dev@dpdk.org
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 11:50:44 +0200
Message-ID: <1887327.ZH1KvsIjBr@xps13>
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.5.4-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <20160614113343.2d6fd116@pcviktorin.fit.vutbr.cz>
References: <575FBF1A.5080005@intel.com>
 <1465894789-20733-1-git-send-email-thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
 <20160614113343.2d6fd116@pcviktorin.fit.vutbr.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] config: make libarchive optional
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 09:50:50 -0000

2016-06-14 11:33, Jan Viktorin:
> Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> wrote:
> > +ifeq ($(CONFIG_RTE_APP_TEST_RESOURCE_TAR),y)
> > +$(eval $(call linked_tar_resource,test_resource_tar,test_resource.c))
> > +SRCS-y += test_pci.c
> > +$(eval $(call linked_tar_resource,test_pci_sysfs,test_pci_sysfs))
> > +LDLIBS += -larchive
> > +endif
> 
> I don't like this very much. I think, the linked_tar_resource can be
> disabled at the place of its definition. What about:
> 
> ifeq ($(CONFIG_RTE_APP_TEST_RESOURCE_TAR),y)
> define linked_tar_resource
> ...
> endef
> else
> linked_tar_resource =
> endif
> 
> ...
> 
> SRCS-$(CONFIG_RTE_APP_TEST_RESOURCE_TAR) += test_pci.c
> 
> ...
> 
> ifeq ($(CONFIG_RTE_APP_TEST_RESOURCE_TAR),y)
> LDLIBS += -larchive
> endif

Yes, that's better.

> > --- a/app/test/test_mp_secondary.c
> > +++ b/app/test/test_mp_secondary.c
> > @@ -245,6 +245,7 @@ run_object_creation_tests(void)
> >  	printf("# Checked rte_lpm_create() OK\n");
> >  #endif
> >  
> > +#ifdef RTE_APP_TEST_RESOURCE_TAR
> >  	/* Run a test_pci call */
> >  	if (test_pci() != 0) {
> >  		printf("PCI scan failed in secondary\n");
> > @@ -252,6 +253,7 @@ run_object_creation_tests(void)
> >  			return -1;
> >  	} else
> >  		printf("PCI scan succeeded in secondary\n");
> > +#endif
> 
> Is it right to call a test from another test? I think this is
> wrong... A user should first test the PCI and then the mp_seconday...
> Or?

:)
This is out of scope for this patch.
Yes this is a part of app/test/ which could be improved a lot.
We don't even have a maintainer for the autotest architecture.