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

["Iremonger, Bernard" <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>]

Hi Thomas,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yigit, Ferruh
> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 12:09 PM
> To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Iremonger, Bernard <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] config: add default linux configuration
> 
> 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.

The default config is useful when working with VM's, that is why I would like to add it.
I don't think it is necessary to add default configs for all the compilers, one sample should be enough.

> 
> > > 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

Regards,

Bernard.