On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 11:11:21 +0530 Vipin Varghese <vipin.vargh...@intel.com> wrote:
> Add note in the missing arguments for compiling BPF examples. > > Signed-off-by: Vipin Varghese <vipin.vargh...@intel.com> > Acked-by: John McNamara <john.mcnam...@intel.com> > > --- > > V3: > - update the dependency for DPDK and others - Thomas Monjalon > > V2: > - ACK for documentation - John McNamara > - move to compile section - Thomas Monjalon > --- > doc/guides/testpmd_app_ug/testpmd_funcs.rst | 6 ++++++ > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/doc/guides/testpmd_app_ug/testpmd_funcs.rst > b/doc/guides/testpmd_app_ug/testpmd_funcs.rst > index cb83a3ce8..09cabec8c 100644 > --- a/doc/guides/testpmd_app_ug/testpmd_funcs.rst > +++ b/doc/guides/testpmd_app_ug/testpmd_funcs.rst > @@ -4651,6 +4651,12 @@ For example: > cd examples/bpf > clang -O2 -target bpf -c t1.c > > +.. note:: > + > + To build DPDK based example, appropriate include and library path is to be > + passed to compiler. For other examples, corresponding dependencies is to > be > + passed for include and libraries. > + > Then to load (and JIT compile) t1.o at RX queue 0, port 1: > > .. code-block:: console I am ok with this but the wording is so generic it doesn't really help the user. A real example on a real distribution would be better. Could someone update this patch and resubmit it? Or better yet just have a make or meson script in examples/bpf?
