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

["Hunt, David" <david.hunt@intel.com>]

On 4/8/2017 11:05 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 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
>

Thomas,
OK, V5 sent. (v4 had 1 line missing in docs). There's just the one patch 
in the set now.
Thanks,
Dave.