Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] examples/ip_pipeline: fix freebsd build error

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

10/04/2018 12:25, Singh, Jasvinder:
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net]
> > 10/04/2018 11:51, Jasvinder Singh:
> > > IP_Pipeline app is not supported in FreeBSD environment. Therefore,
> > > skip it while building the sample apps on FreeBSD.
> > [...]
> > > --- a/examples/ip_pipeline/Makefile
> > > +++ b/examples/ip_pipeline/Makefile
> > > @@ -67,6 +67,13 @@ RTE_TARGET ?= x86_64-native-linuxapp-gcc
> > >
> > >  include $(RTE_SDK)/mk/rte.vars.mk
> > >
> > > +ifneq ($(CONFIG_RTE_EXEC_ENV),"linuxapp")
> > 
> > You can use CONFIG_RTE_EXEC_ENV_LINUXAPP
> > 
> > > +$(info This application can only operate in a linuxapp environment, \
> > > +please change the definition of the RTE_TARGET environment variable)
> > > +all:
> > > +clean:
> > > +else
> > 
> > 
> > Copy of my previous comment:
> > "
> > It is not skipping the example, just throwing an error (which is needed).
> > 
> > You should add a test in examples/Makefile to really skip it.
> > "
> 
> In V2, we follow the same pattern as followed in other examples such as l3fwd-power, ethtool, etc.

A kind of counter example is:
	ifeq ($(CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_X86_64),y)
	DIRS-y += performance-thread
	endif

But I get your point that it is done this way in several examples.

> If we put check in examples/Makefile, than how the situation is handled if someone tries to build ip_pipeline straight instead of building all examples.

My thought is that if you try to build explicitly this example on FreeBSD,
you should get an error.

> > In this v2, you replaced the error by an info message.
> > Error was better in my opinion.

I will get this v2 and not bother you more about that.
All examples could be fixed at once. Not sure it is worth though,
given this is the legacy build system.