From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f44.google.com (mail-wm0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22FFF95FE for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 16:09:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f44.google.com with SMTP id m124so116202386wme.1 for ; Tue, 07 Jun 2016 07:09:03 -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=gsgYpla/TL6/kx+MBCtv3ZS7ucIjsTvlky+5pRh7XAA=; b=e7W4dXuZ7rGbMmYvLiruWdrRejgbkflWILH4Pq7tk9T6LCK2G2vL9ZQQ21nU7t7l6Z NUtjFLC2JUJb/qR6hBW+XhAAfAU47PpOKJ9R16vKpnnQYEJgBFDoapTtl8aQTMvj/79u SQmUOqXHxBcyV5C7/9pRxVUrK6Z1+SVxXlgrUCJV9QfqOGFo3VH89oRmbeUkuqURooWu jUtxDhgTHB9dkFQtlBvNwCmnFfJdKi13X5diS8EfZ/IpbsAv+Hhu7XLnL4aRQKJWwtrp j1RexwRQqiWJvsJ+QV2fpRt6jfVkAfNWsen8/07C793C1LHcEI5bfKrdBqKxbKI8OcN3 /9KA== 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=gsgYpla/TL6/kx+MBCtv3ZS7ucIjsTvlky+5pRh7XAA=; b=C0+VNA/HlfywOfjh3PNWyGxP+BE5JRqvnNzvV9MR+BVPgnRe3/o5fO6Qu6TFvx7J/e H8vgUHgjzu7hCUFXpnAfXnegKFvCT42Gehy5rAZ+ttAh3aQ3TxOYKSAT+XGCv13ZXQ2a 3MqXfcF9ej4CSmvyyTm2cXFvCg5KQw4UppjxePwOKJvOVAcXWfrIzhexhqGbYjP3guDL +ekpCZIIqGjEgQ1RzKJbfLQdd6rz7rbs73vJxSfRXALQS/Yy1euZKQHO1hXOCW/VF2cS ZJZ/DTXmhpLltwlIYDkUz1UELrguwaKytcMIDdcRlNaYPwyZb+nSFEWkfcnjbpdyNbA0 p03g== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJrWNDov2phro/xvjau37bTa/E/DBn4yrYHAi2XDGBN9yyYLqs7nQyjr9RM4bp6YyK/ X-Received: by 10.194.148.46 with SMTP id tp14mr21270396wjb.104.1465308542724; Tue, 07 Jun 2016 07:09:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xps13.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net. [77.134.203.184]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a140sm19746584wme.18.2016.06.07.07.09.01 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 07 Jun 2016 07:09:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Neil Horman Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Bruce Richardson , Stephen Hemminger , Panu Matilainen Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2016 16:09:01 +0200 Message-ID: <2348927.6Q8KypH0YD@xps13> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.5.4-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20160607134948.GB13025@neilslaptop.think-freely.org> References: <1463431287-4551-1-git-send-email-nhorman@tuxdriver.com> <2621975.1tT4ekXN2H@xps13> <20160607134948.GB13025@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 14:09:03 -0000 2016-06-07 09:49, Neil Horman: > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 03:24:55PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 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. > > > > Sooo....you do actually want to just use the hostapp makefile, because you like > the name, and don't like mine, and you want to just dump the output into the > same app directory that all the dpdk examples get written to, because it looks > ok to you? No. Your Makefile is fine. I just suggest to rename it to rte.hostapp.mk. The examples are not built in the app/ directory. But you can do what you want. I'm just suggesting. By the way, please use checkpatch.sh.