2016-05-25 15:43, Neil Horman:
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 08:56:25PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 2016-05-25 13:40, Neil Horman:
> > > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 07:08:19PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > > 2016-05-24 15:41, Neil Horman:
> > > > > + echo MODGEN $@; \
> > > > > + OBJF=`readlink -f $@`; \
> > > > > + ${RTE_OUTPUT}/buildtools/pmdinfogen \$$OBJF
> > > > > \$$OBJF.mod.c; \
> > > >
> > > > Maybe .pmd.c would be more appropriate than .mod.c?
> > > fine
> > > > What means mod/MODGEN/MODBUILD?
> > > GENerate Module information & BUILD module information.
> >
> > I think "module" is not appropriate here.
> >
> This is starting to feel very much like bikeshedding. What do you think would
> be more appropriate here?
pmd/PMDINFO//
> > > > It deserves to be in a shell script, at least to ease testing.
> > > What do you mean by "it" and why would it be easier to test in a shell
> > > script?
> >
> > "it" is mostly this whole patch.
> > With a shell script, we can test the behaviour on one file easily.
> > Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't like having too much lines in a Makefile rule.
> > We probably need more opinions.
> >
> That makes no sense to me. Any such script would need to receive two
> arguments:
> 1) The path to a C file for a pmd
> 2) The path to the corresponding object file for that pmd
>
> Running any such script is then usless unles its predecated on first building
> all the object files in the pmd. And if you want to run something by hand on
> the object files, it seems pretty straightforward to do so, just run:
> build/builttools/pmdinfogen /path/to/pmd/object/file
>
> The rest of that code is really just a test to avoid having to run pmdinfo gen
> on any files other than the ones that contain the PMD_REGISTER_DRIVER macro
OK, no strong opinion here.
If you feel comfortable with multi-lines "sh -c" and escaping, up to you.
If I discover something wrong in this part and needs to do some maintenance
work, I'll probably think differently.
