04/08/2017 11:53, Hunt, David: > > On 4/8/2017 10:36 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 04/08/2017 10:22, Hunt, David: > >> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net] > >> 07/06/2017 16:37, David Hunt: > >>> Users can now use 'make defconfig' to generate a configuration using > >>> the most appropriate defaults for the current machine. > >>> > >>> <arch-machine-execenv-toolchain> > >>> arch taken from uname -m > >>> machine defaults to native > >>> execenv is taken from uname, Linux=linuxapp, otherwise bsdapp > >>> toolchain is taken from $CC -v to see which compiler to use > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: David Hunt <david.h...@intel.com> > >>> Acked-by: Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.j...@nxp.com> > >> Looks to be a good idea if it is really automatic. > >> > >>> + ${CC} -v 2>&1 | \ > >>> + grep " version " | cut -d ' ' -f 1) > >> Unfortunately, it depends on $CC which is not commonly exported. > >> What about defaulting to gcc? > >> > >>> - @echo "Configuration done" > >>> + @echo "Configuration done using "$(shell basename \ > >>> + $(RTE_CONFIG_TEMPLATE) | sed "s/defconfig_//g") > >> RTE_CONFIG_TEMPLATE is not defined in this patch (and I do not see the > >> benefit in next patch). > >> > >> Thomas, > >> Does this mean that this patch is not going into this release? It > >> has been acked for almost a month now, with no further comment. The one > >> hour between your comment and the release of RC4 did not give me a > >> reasonable amount of time to address your concerns. I also feel that the > >> lack of comments in the last month should mean that the patch should be > >> applied as is. If changes are required, I am happy to address in the next > >> release. > > You're right, I'm very sorry not taking time to review it before. > > I think only the first patch should be integrated, without the comment for > > RTE_CONFIG_TEMPLATE. > > Opinion? > > OK, I would be OK with the first patch. However, I think the > RTE_CONFIG_TEMPLATE comment part of the patch is fine, we just tested it > here. It's only RTE_TEMPLATE I'm introducing in the second patch, nor > RTE_CONFIG_TEMPLATE. That existed before this patch set. So the echo > command in the first patch works fine, and shows the user what template > the script has used to configure itself.
Ah OK I totally missed it :) > I could upload another patch with just the first patch (and the relevant > 2 lines from the docs patch) as a v4? Yes perfect
