Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/3] mk: add sensible default target with defconfig

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

04/08/2017 11:53, Hunt, David:
> 
> On 4/8/2017 10:36 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 04/08/2017 10:22, Hunt, David:
> >> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net]
> >> 07/06/2017 16:37, David Hunt:
> >>> Users can now use 'make defconfig' to generate a configuration using
> >>> the most appropriate defaults for the current machine.
> >>>
> >>> <arch-machine-execenv-toolchain>
> >>>    arch taken from uname -m
> >>>    machine defaults to native
> >>>    execenv is taken from uname, Linux=linuxapp, otherwise bsdapp
> >>>    toolchain is taken from $CC -v to see which compiler to use
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: David Hunt <david.hunt@intel.com>
> >>> Acked-by: Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain@nxp.com>
> >> Looks to be a good idea if it is really automatic.
> >>
> >>> +                ${CC} -v 2>&1 | \
> >>> +                grep " version " | cut -d ' ' -f 1)
> >> Unfortunately, it depends on $CC which is not commonly exported.
> >> What about defaulting to gcc?
> >>
> >>> -	@echo "Configuration done"
> >>> +	@echo "Configuration done using "$(shell basename \
> >>> +		$(RTE_CONFIG_TEMPLATE) | sed "s/defconfig_//g")
> >> RTE_CONFIG_TEMPLATE is not defined in this patch (and I do not see the benefit in next patch).
> >>
> >> Thomas,
> >>       Does this mean that this patch is not going into this release? It has been acked for almost a month now, with no further comment. The one hour between your comment and the release of RC4 did not give me a reasonable amount of time to address your concerns. I also feel that the lack of comments in the last month should mean that the patch should be applied as is. If changes are required, I am happy to address in the next release.
> > You're right, I'm very sorry not taking time to review it before.
> > I think only the first patch should be integrated, without the comment for
> > RTE_CONFIG_TEMPLATE.
> > Opinion?
> 
> OK, I would be OK with the first patch. However, I think the 
> RTE_CONFIG_TEMPLATE comment part of the patch is fine, we just tested it 
> here. It's only RTE_TEMPLATE I'm introducing in the second patch, nor 
> RTE_CONFIG_TEMPLATE. That existed before this patch set. So the echo 
> command in the first patch works fine, and shows the user what template 
> the script has used to configure itself.

Ah OK I totally missed it :)

> I could upload another patch with just the first patch (and the relevant 
> 2 lines from the docs patch) as a v4?

Yes perfect