Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] config: add default linux configuration

[Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>]

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:23:12PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2016-02-16 11:16, Ferruh Yigit:
> > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 02:31:45PM +0000, Bernard Iremonger wrote:
> > > add config/defconfig_x86_64-default-linuxapp-gcc file.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Bernard Iremonger <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>
> > 
> > Apart from configuration related discussion,
> > this patch was helpful for me to notice "default" machine type, and difference between "native",
> > so I believe it is good to have this as sample config.
> 
> The justification is strange. We are not going to have a config file
> for every combinations.
> 
Simply I found useful for me and thought others can be useful too, if you think not useful, that is OK,
and yes probably we shouldn't have a sample for every combination and this patch is not suggesting that.

> Defaulting defconfig files to the native machine natural to me.
> 
No issue on having native machine type, just another defconfig with another machine type.

> > Also not scope of this patch but I agree on Bruce's comment on renaming "default" machine type to "generic",
> > I can send a patch for this if there is a demand.
> 
> default is an Intel core 2. Why generic is a better name?

When you have "x86_64-default-linuxapp-icc", this feels like this is default configuration for given architecture among others, which will give best performance (what native suggests)
If I would know nothing about DPDK and see available configs first time, I would pick this one, because this is default one J.

"generic" stress more that this config supports generic features of different machine types.

But this is how I feel, as I said I would prefer "generic", but I can survive with existing one.

Thanks,
ferruh