[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/2] config: disable CONFIG_RTE_SCHED_VECTOR for arm
Jan Viktorin
viktorin at rehivetech.com
Mon Nov 30 15:04:21 CET 2015
On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 14:59:45 +0100
Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com> wrote:
> 2015-11-30 14:27, Jan Viktorin:
> > I believe (and have already expressed this idea) that this is not a
> > problem of architecture ports but it is a problem of the build system.
> > Love me or hate me, in my opinion the build system is broken :). The
> > build system should be able to solve this.
> >
> > I've created privately an integration of kconfig into DPDK, however, it
> > is far from being usable and I did not have time to make at least an
> > RFC patch. If there is an attitude in the community to include such
> > thing in the future versions, I'd like to make some more effort in this
> > area.
>
> If we were integrating kconfig, we should consider kconfig-frontends
> (http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/projects/kconfig-frontends).
True, this seems to be the easiest way. I've already used it
successfully.
> But I'm not sure it is the way to go. You are welcome to open the debate
> in a dedicated thread by explaining the benefits compared to a configuration
> script.
OK. I will consider this. Probably, after the community call... (Or
before?)
> I think most of the options could be automatically guessed given the target
> CPU, kernel, libc and compiler. It looks like a scripting task, not a
> manual configuration (as kconfig provides). But maybe we can mix kconfig
> and some automatic defaults.
>
Well, scripting... If you have issues like "feature X" does not work
on "platform A" then you need to express this. If you try to script
such dependency, I am afraid you always end up with a system of the same
or equivalent complexity as the kconfig already has :). We'll see...
Regards
Jan
--
Jan Viktorin E-mail: Viktorin at RehiveTech.com
System Architect Web: www.RehiveTech.com
RehiveTech
Brno, Czech Republic
More information about the dev
mailing list