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. > > 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
