Hi Thomas, > -----Original Message----- > From: Yigit, Ferruh > Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 12:09 PM > To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com> > Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Iremonger, Bernard <bernard.iremonger at intel.com> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] config: add default linux configuration > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:23:12PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 2016-02-16 11:16, Ferruh Yigit: > > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 02:31:45PM +0000, Bernard Iremonger wrote: > > > > add config/defconfig_x86_64-default-linuxapp-gcc file. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Bernard Iremonger <bernard.iremonger at intel.com> > > > > > > Apart from configuration related discussion, this patch was helpful > > > for me to notice "default" machine type, and difference between > > > "native", so I believe it is good to have this as sample config. > > > > The justification is strange. We are not going to have a config file > > for every combinations. > > > Simply I found useful for me and thought others can be useful too, if you > think not useful, that is OK, and yes probably we shouldn't have a sample for > every combination and this patch is not suggesting that. > > > Defaulting defconfig files to the native machine natural to me. > > > No issue on having native machine type, just another defconfig with another > machine type.
The default config is useful when working with VM's, that is why I would like to add it. I don't think it is necessary to add default configs for all the compilers, one sample should be enough. > > > > Also not scope of this patch but I agree on Bruce's comment on > > > renaming "default" machine type to "generic", I can send a patch for this > if there is a demand. > > > > default is an Intel core 2. Why generic is a better name? > > When you have "x86_64-default-linuxapp-icc", this feels like this is default > configuration for given architecture among others, which will give best > performance (what native suggests) If I would know nothing about DPDK and > see available configs first time, I would pick this one, because this is > default > one J. > > "generic" stress more that this config supports generic features of different > machine types. > > But this is how I feel, as I said I would prefer "generic", but I can survive > with > existing one. > > Thanks, > Ferruh Regards, Bernard.