[dpdk-dev] [PATCHv6 1/7] pmdinfogen: Add buildtools and pmdinfogen utility

[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.

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 :)

> > > > +#if __x86_64__ || __aarch64__
> > > 
> > > Better to use CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_64.
> > > 
> > I'm not sure why, given that every supported compiler defines the arches I use,
> > but sure, fine.
> 
> Because it will work for every 64-bit arch in DPDK.
> 
Ok, fair enough.

> > > > --- /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?

Neil