> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 9:27 PM
> To: Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richard...@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] build: prevent accidentally building without NUMA
> support
>
> 15/06/2023 16:38, Bruce Richardson:
> > When libnuma development package is missing on a system, DPDK can
> > still be built but will be missing much-needed support for NUMA memory
> > management. This may later cause issues at runtime if the resulting
> > binary is run on a NUMA system.
> >
> > We can reduce the incidence of such runtime errors by ensuring that,
> > for native builds*, libnuma is present - unless the user actually
> > specifies via "max_numa_nodes" that they don't require NUMA support.
> > Having this as an error condition is also in keeping with what is
> > documented in the Linux GSG doc, where libnuma is listed as a
> > requirement for building DPDK [1].
> >
> > * NOTE: cross-compilation builds have a different logic set, with a
> > separate "numa" value indicating if numa support is necessary.
> >
> > [1] https://doc.dpdk.org/guides-23.03/linux_gsg/sys_reqs.html
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com>
> >
> > ---
> > V5: Rebase on main, since dependencies merged
> >
> > V4: Add Depends-on tag so CI picks up dependency
> >
> > V3:
> > - install 32-bit libnuma packages on CI systems [thanks to David
> > for the changes]
> > - split the patch out of the previous patchset, so it can be tracked
> > separately from the more minor fixup changes.
> >
> > V2: Limit check to linux only
>
> Is the test ci/Intel-compilation fixed?
> Could you send a new version for testing the CI?
>
Sorry, this is caused by intel testbeds lack of dep libnuma, Installed it and
re-run the CI, result is PASSED.
