Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] doc/testpmd: update compile steps for bpf examples

[Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>]

On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 11:11:21 +0530
Vipin Varghese <vipin.varghese@intel.com> wrote:

> Add note in the missing arguments for compiling BPF examples.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vipin Varghese <vipin.varghese@intel.com>
> Acked-by: John McNamara <john.mcnamara@intel.com>
> 
> ---
> 
> V3:
>  - update the dependency for DPDK and others - Thomas Monjalon
> 
> V2:
>  - ACK for documentation - John McNamara
>  - move to compile section - Thomas Monjalon
> ---
>  doc/guides/testpmd_app_ug/testpmd_funcs.rst | 6 ++++++
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/doc/guides/testpmd_app_ug/testpmd_funcs.rst b/doc/guides/testpmd_app_ug/testpmd_funcs.rst
> index cb83a3ce8..09cabec8c 100644
> --- a/doc/guides/testpmd_app_ug/testpmd_funcs.rst
> +++ b/doc/guides/testpmd_app_ug/testpmd_funcs.rst
> @@ -4651,6 +4651,12 @@ For example:
>     cd examples/bpf
>     clang -O2 -target bpf -c t1.c
>  
> +.. note::
> +
> +   To build DPDK based example, appropriate include and library path is to be
> +   passed to compiler. For other examples, corresponding dependencies is to be
> +   passed for include and libraries.
> +
>  Then to load (and JIT compile) t1.o at RX queue 0, port 1:
>  
>  .. code-block:: console

I am ok with this but the wording is so generic it doesn't really help
the user. A real example on a real distribution would be better.
Could someone update this patch and resubmit it? Or better yet
just have a make or meson script in examples/bpf?