[PATCH v2 1/2] build: clarify configuration without IOVA field in mbuf

[Thomas Monjalon]

09/03/2023 02:43, fengchengwen:
> On 2023/3/7 0:13, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_22_11.rst
> > +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_22_11.rst
> > @@ -504,7 +504,7 @@ ABI Changes
> >    ``rte-worker-<lcore_id>`` so that DPDK can accommodate lcores higher than 99.
> >  
> >  * mbuf: Replaced ``buf_iova`` field with ``next`` field and added a new field
> > -  ``dynfield2`` at its place in second cacheline if ``RTE_IOVA_AS_PA`` is 0.
> > +  ``dynfield2`` at its place in second cacheline if ``RTE_IOVA_IN_MBUF`` is 0.
> 
> Should add to release 23.03 rst.

Yes we could add a note in API changes.

> The original 22.11 still have RTE_IOVA_AS_PA definition.

Yes it was not a good idea to rename in the release notes.

> > -if dpdk_conf.get('RTE_IOVA_AS_PA') == 0
> > -    build = false
> > -    reason = 'driver does not support disabling IOVA as PA mode'
> > +if not get_option('enable_iova_as_pa')
> >      subdir_done()
> >  endif
> 
> Suggest keep original, and replace RTE_IOVA_AS_PA with RTE_IOVA_IN_MBUF:
> if dpdk_conf.get('RTE_IOVA_IN_MBUF') == 0
>      subdir_done()
> endif

Why testing the C macro in Meson?
It looks simpler to check the Meson option in Meson.

> Meson build 0.63.0 already support deprecated a option by a new option.
> When update to the new meson verion, the drivers' meson.build will not be modified.

I don't understand this comment.