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

Neil Horman nhorman at tuxdriver.com
Tue Jun 7 15:49:48 CEST 2016


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? 

Fine, whatever, I'm tired of arguing.
Neil



More information about the dev mailing list