From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f42.google.com (mail-wm0-f42.google.com [74.125.82.42]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA5639A81 for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 15:24:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f42.google.com with SMTP id m124so114332018wme.1 for ; Tue, 07 Jun 2016 06:24:57 -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=1HmjvH5C7OQkxOsvWwsqeEk6gd5uqBqCLn9GcZoNSHQ=; b=STGCoIFeFsZw63/iuzRRVFrOY/JOAgopj1vp/1r8BSiHTCTs5ZVls64yqI8PwJ1ljP 5A6BwFA1V2I4UaIgJ/Zc7US2aO2kTXDPPoOYcFZuDj2pFN0GDombZa/LSKlLD4umfVJO 8RLpYzEFYPFa7M4hjFpEjGeno2V6EfNVNt0uNia85DnNnEQuXnGOdBWroE7mMb7dj9dm t9yFHfiXP/amAPidFxDWkZj0sVApwVKBCdHkAn7YERXkQ0bz53naetrmSYG/JV5nKqb7 IH4GscKcmzAuPHUUeEvIARqMOkAg739V1u5EuaMtumiV9pLQFS+EWR0NkWlYEvZlTkKW 74bw== 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=1HmjvH5C7OQkxOsvWwsqeEk6gd5uqBqCLn9GcZoNSHQ=; b=Xux+sRdvOINHjoM+P1aafJvL5BZQU/MBVw9ermOS9DRr9Z0VJLZKZT3M1ELbdkEgNe dYgY0xCk1HCYcLP1eF452mv9Le1CQtgSSHoaOWPubJPWsVT5AGsVjDz+WV57UVDiHIPS u391z9Y7Dszg9NX+YTuU9QCTlClWQNDvIR76VCRnltn0D60M9d49nxZ/MmKlQ2gYWS6p xjkyEzxbkv3YRVqFO4hdJL5BsIrPoCkNwlvEyomOi5ccephl23qMKk3oZqjiokiPnFnt xGjA5kl9OW71hLPPIIydCjR9QbTwGwPYuHiKwyJnRgAwH+7mE7FoX8XP7pWvb8efzPRm 8dSw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJuhsoorHViv3Mfum2lcyp5IM3oz+ohng2SJbiTRlcViXpxxseJykBLRIpv8rYHpIOX X-Received: by 10.28.57.196 with SMTP id g187mr2638137wma.86.1465305897338; Tue, 07 Jun 2016 06:24:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xps13.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net. [77.134.203.184]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w16sm19471762wmw.6.2016.06.07.06.24.56 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 07 Jun 2016 06:24:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Neil Horman Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Bruce Richardson , Stephen Hemminger , Panu Matilainen Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2016 15:24:55 +0200 Message-ID: <2621975.1tT4ekXN2H@xps13> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.5.4-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20160607130337.GA13025@neilslaptop.think-freely.org> References: <1463431287-4551-1-git-send-email-nhorman@tuxdriver.com> <9045763.zD3817Zzj4@xps13> <20160607130337.GA13025@neilslaptop.think-freely.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCHv6 1/7] pmdinfogen: Add buildtools and pmdinfogen utility X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2016 13:24:57 -0000 2016-06-07 09:03, Neil Horman: > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 02:53:36PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 2016-06-07 08:04, Neil Horman: > > > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 11:57:42AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > 2016-05-31 09:57, Neil Horman: > > > > > +++ b/buildtools/Makefile > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ > > > > > +# BSD LICENSE > > > > > +# > > > > > +# Copyright(c) 2010-2014 Intel Corporation. All rights reserved. > > > > > +# All rights reserved. > > > > > > > > I really think it is a strange copyright for a new empty file. > > > > > > > Its not empty, It lists the subdirectories to build. And given that the DPDK is > > > licensed under multiple licenses (BSD/GPL/LGPL), it introduces confusion to not > > > call out the license in a specific file, file size is really irrelevant to that. > > > > Neil, please take a drink :) > > I'm not talking about license but about copyright. > > Don't you think it's strange to put "2010-2014 Intel" copyright on top of > > the few lines you wrote? > > > Ah, yes, I copied the file, so the copyright years are wrong, so that should be > fixed. Not only the years, the copyright holder should be you or your company. > That said, you asked if it was strange to put a copyright on an empty file, and > the answer is no, because its not empty, and it nees a copyright for clarity :) Of course, yes. > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > > +++ b/mk/rte.buildtools.mk > > > > > > > > I'm sorry I really do not agree it is a good practice to create a new > > > > makefile type just for a new directory. > > > > My opinion is that you should use and improve rte.hostapp.mk to make > > > > it usable for possible other host apps. > > > > > > > I am so exhausted by this argument. > > > > > > They are the same file Thomas. I'm not sure how you don't see that. I've > > > explained to you that they are, with the exception of whitespace noise, > > > identical. buildtools is a better nomenclature because it more closely > > > describes what is being built at the moment. The only reason we still have > > > hostapp is because you didn't remove it when you removed the applications that, > > > in your own words from the commit log, are "useless". The argument that we > > > should keep the build file, and its naming convention on the off chance that > > > someone might use it in the future really doesn't hold water with me, at least > > > not to the point that, when we have something that duplicates its function we > > > should do anything other than take the path of least resistance to make it work. > > > I'm not sure how you expected anyone to know there is a makefile in place in the > > > DPDK to build local application, when there are currently no applications in > > > place, but asking people to use it after the fact is really just the height of > > > busywork. If it was already building other utilities, I'd feel differently, but > > > given that its just sitting there, a vestigual file, makes this all just silly. > > > > > > But clearly, this isn't going to be done until I do what you want, regardless of > > > what either of us think of it, So I'll make the change. > > > > You can keep it as is if you find someone else to say that having a makefile > > template named and specific to only the buildtools usage is fine. > > And no, it is not identical to rte.hostapp.mk. > > But I was probably not clear enough: > > I do not like rte.hostapp.mk. I just like its explicit name. > > I see the same issue in rte.hostapp.mk and rte.buildtools.mk: they should be > > build in the app/ subdir like any other app. > > > > So my suggestion is to replace rte.hostapp.mk with your implementation in > > a separate patch with the build path changed to app/ instead of hostapp/ or > > buildtools/. > > > Soo, I'm confused now. You don't want rte.buildtools.mk, and you don't really > want rte.hostapp.mk, you want a different makefile, that just builds to the /app > subdirectory? The apps and examples use rte.app.mk to build a DPDK app. Here you make a standard app, without DPDK dependency, to run on the host. So you cannot use rte.app.mk. I think rte.hostapp.mk is not a so bad name (I have no better one). About the build directory, the app/ one looks OK, no need to put a reference to buildtools which is just the user of this makefile. Except these considerations, the content of your makefile is probably good.