From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AF46A0524; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 10:44:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 703631606BC; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 10:44:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 176511606BB for ; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 10:44:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8218B5C0106; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 04:44:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 05 Feb 2021 04:44:09 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm3; bh= ec4nGgOP+JuQQR3u7BktmpkmHFpTEjPGPdhuBo3MeM4=; b=lVJ+inbKhoaWYWs7 RKiARwzZvlWBzNNK0DxRuhFry4YGFsZH5MNCtHfWSczmpr/MKkcOizcHNXyLCNuV 1vjyCbMJ+Grr/jEKqnFaAdXoKSp/X1/AX/UjFezabNuVFAZUd7zmxLuh60/HMC6F rKBe79wJTcM9GBanjQTmxOjiyU4BD1WbR2ZWMAxXlIu93V+FFQ3BdrGLeNZIdtY7 mxoHWVP/1+U6VGUVSjQjXDaO2HUsc27YcbNZETRktfleAeC3ev1vcP/w1ZdJTxBv ymp5WPG1/e4xp+o86iwdARemHSNPJ5NBYdU9HCQo75/4twNHf0oDRJDr8eqvaCad tkcfSA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=ec4nGgOP+JuQQR3u7BktmpkmHFpTEjPGPdhuBo3Me M4=; b=X8A/d2vwp5e9/SL5rcRiZvFOCyE4WQI9/FVB2UW4h0Tb6pdBaRfhtBcWU Gb1bb+AeBcmWml6xucdcKcLy4EGJJgdHYjw42u/5jNPYl0Df/98opE7Ko7pSvbiW qEL3OD4dnQZXFAqoDGJtD4l8+tT7G/sqXQiP24+oGMQf4PYC6sze74/u6dU9NiAg ndHk4NfxI1cGLaLQB2h1VIiSjxxp04pvM9RsjQSkPRCMjkDsb+ShsDbyKY4qtLrZ PY3s4wcanqETgzXouk4tfxQPzNO3juQ1n4OoPf5tfuinmTo4MWHhWnSY0Rn+ZIc6 DuEvq2mCtcW4CxlhHoA7HD2/DeOvA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrgeeigddtgecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthhqredttddtjeenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucggtf frrghtthgvrhhnpeekteehtdeivefhieegjeelgedufeejheekkeetueevieeuvdevuedt jeevheevteenucfkphepjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuih iivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhho nhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 8A8B71080064; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 04:44:07 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Juraj =?utf-8?B?TGlua2XFoQ==?= , Bruce Richardson Cc: "Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com" , "Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com" , "jerinjacobk@gmail.com" , "hemant.agrawal@nxp.com" , "ferruh.yigit@intel.com" , "aboyer@pensando.io" , "dev@dpdk.org" Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2021 10:44:05 +0100 Message-ID: <2481944.KmHlgzSXhO@thomas> In-Reply-To: <20210205093841.GA1462@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1611916159-32158-1-git-send-email-juraj.linkes@pantheon.tech> <0055021693274b0caf0b542bbefd0715@pantheon.tech> <20210205093841.GA1462@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v2] build: kni cross-compilation support X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 05/02/2021 10:38, Bruce Richardson: > On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 09:26:05AM +0000, Juraj Linke=C5=A1 wrote: > > From: Bruce Richardson > > > The block for cross-compiling is fairly large and complex, so I'm won= dering how > > > we can simplify things a bit. If we had multiple kernel modules I'd s= uggest > > > splitting thing up into a native and cross-build subdirectories to ge= t the build > > > info, but that seems like overkill here. > >=20 > > This configuration would be the same for all kernel modules (right?), s= o I'm not sure how the number of kernel modules is relevant here. > > If we split it, what would the dir structure look like? Something like = this? > > kernel/linux/ > > =E2=94=9C=E2=94=80=E2=94=80 aarch64 > > =E2=94=9C=E2=94=80=E2=94=80 native > > =E2=94=9C=E2=94=80=E2=94=80 kni > > =E2=94=9C=E2=94=80=E2=94=80 > >=20 >=20 > Yep, that would be the structure - though perhaps with "cross" rather than > "aarch64" being the alternative to "native". The reason I felt that the > number of kmods was relevant is that it would be really weird to have 2 > subdirectories for infrastructure for a single directory containing one > module - a 200% percent overhead ratio. :-) Therefore, I thinking keeping > it all in one file is best, but we'll see after the next revision how it > looks. Going forward, we should not have any Linux kernel module in this DPDK repo= sitory. We must encourage upstream developments. That's why I am against adding more directories in kernel/linux/. KNI is still there (could move later), but please handle it in kni/ directo= ry.