[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] mk: allow use of environment var for make config
shreyansh.jain at nxp.com
Wed Jun 7 13:46:18 CEST 2017
On Wednesday 07 June 2017 03:58 PM, Hunt, David wrote:
> Hi Shreyansh,
> On 7/6/2017 10:36 AM, Shreyansh Jain wrote:
>> Hello David,
>> On Wednesday 07 June 2017 02:09 PM, Hunt, David wrote:
>>> I found an issue (or two) with this part of the patch, and have
>>> a proposed solution.
>>> 1. RTE_TARGET originally had a different meaning. It was used for
>>> making examples, specifying the target directory of where the SDK was
>>> built. It's not good to re-purpose this for something else, as I'm
>>> doing in this patch. (even though I'm not sure that variable is
>>> suitably named in the first place, but that's a different issue).
>> Even I didn't realize this until you highlighted here.
>>> 2. If we set RTE_TARGET on the environment, we will break the 'make
>>> -C examples/<app>', unless we set RTE_TARGET to be something else
>>> (i.e. 'make -C examples/<app> RTE_TARGET=build'). One value for
>>> making DPDK, and another for building examples. It's confusing to the
>> Agree about re-using RTE_TARGET is breaking existing assumption about
>> its use.
>>> An alternative patch would be as follows:
>>> RTE_CONFIG_TEMPLATE :=
>>> ifdef T
>>> *-ifeq ("$(origin T)", "command line")*
>>> RTE_CONFIG_TEMPLATE := $(RTE_SRCDIR)/config/defconfig_$(T)
>>> export RTE_CONFIG_TEMPLATE
>> So, that would mean, user would do either of the following:
>> make T=<template> config
>> export T=<template>
>> make config
>> Is that correct? (I tried it and it seems to be working fine)
>> First method is same as today. For the second, I am just skeptical
>> whether we should use such a small identifier ("T") or we have a new
>> Either way, I am OK. [export T=<template>] looks fine to me - in fact,
>> on a second though, IMO, if T=<template> is provided as command line,
>> it should also be acceptable as env variable.
> I did a quick poll here in the office and people feel that 'T' is too
> short for an environment variable. RTE_TEMPLATE would be preferred, and
> it's a sensible choice that does not conflict with RTE_TARGET.
> So if we use RTE_TEMPLATE, we'd also have to put in a couple of lines
> for the "make install" case, but it's still a small enough patch:
> diff --git a/mk/rte.sdkinstall.mk b/mk/rte.sdkinstall.mk
> index dbac2a2..a464b01 100644
> --- a/mk/rte.sdkinstall.mk
> +++ b/mk/rte.sdkinstall.mk
> @@ -47,6 +47,10 @@ ifneq ($(MAKECMDGOALS),pre_install)
> include $(RTE_SDK)/mk/rte.vars.mk
> *+ifndef T**
> **+T := $(RTE_TEMPLATE)**
> * ifdef T # defaults with T= will install an almost flat staging tree
> export prefix ?=
> kerneldir ?= $(prefix)/kmod
> diff --git a/mk/rte.sdkroot.mk b/mk/rte.sdkroot.mk
> index 076a2d7..0b71a4e 100644
> --- a/mk/rte.sdkroot.mk
> +++ b/mk/rte.sdkroot.mk
> @@ -63,6 +63,8 @@ ifdef T
> ifeq ("$(origin T)", "command line")
> RTE_CONFIG_TEMPLATE := $(RTE_SRCDIR)/config/defconfig_$(T)
> **+RTE_CONFIG_TEMPLATE := $(RTE_SRCDIR)/config/defconfig_$(RTE_TEMPLATE)**
> * endif
> export RTE_CONFIG_TEMPLATE
> So if T is provided on the command line, it takes priority.
> If that seems reasonable to you, I'll push up a v3. :)
Sounds good to me.
Feel free to add my signoff to v3.
More information about the dev