On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 09:11:27AM -0400, Aaron Conole wrote:
> Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Can someone review this please?
> >
> > On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 10:30:27AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> >> Hemant, does this fix the problem you reported?
> >>
> >> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 09:14:55PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> >> > The check for rte_config.h in acinclude.m4 used AC_CHECK_FILE, but this
> >> > macro is intended to check for a file on the host system, not the build
> >> > system, which means that it fails unconditionally in a cross-compilation
> >> > environment. However, the intended check here is for a header file,
> >> > which is part of the build system. To check for part of the build
> >> > system,
> >> > we can just use "test", so this commit makes that change.
> >> >
> >> > Reported-by: Hemant Agrawal <[email protected]>
> >> > Reported-at:
> >> > https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2017-March/329994.html
> >> > Signed-off-by: Ben Pfaff <[email protected]>
> >> > ---
> >> > acinclude.m4 | 7 ++++---
> >> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/acinclude.m4 b/acinclude.m4
> >> > index 744d8f89525c..842469455914 100644
> >> > --- a/acinclude.m4
> >> > +++ b/acinclude.m4
> >> > @@ -180,9 +180,10 @@ AC_DEFUN([OVS_CHECK_DPDK], [
> >> > DPDK_INCLUDE="$with_dpdk/include"
> >> > # If 'with_dpdk' is passed install directory, point to headers
> >> > # installed in $DESTDIR/$prefix/include/dpdk
> >> > - AC_CHECK_FILE([$DPDK_INCLUDE/rte_config.h], [],
> >> > - [AC_CHECK_FILE([$DPDK_INCLUDE/dpdk/rte_config.h],
> >> > - [DPDK_INCLUDE=$DPDK_INCLUDE/dpdk],
> >> > [])])
> >> > + if test ! -e "$DPDK_INCLUDE/rte_config.h" && \
> >> > + test -e "$DPDK_INCLUDE/dpdk/rte_config.h"; then
> >> > + DPDK_INCLUDE=$DPDK_INCLUDE/dpdk/rte_config.h
>
> As Darrell pointed out, the DPDK_INCLUDE directive needs to trim the header
> file.
Thanks, fixed in v2.
> >> > + fi
>
> Also, this leads with tabs, and the rest of the file leads with spaces.
Fixed in v2:
https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2017-July/335079.html
> I found an old discussion about the AC_CHECK_FILE limitation at
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf/2000-10/msg00018.html
> and the recommendation ends up being "use test, AC_CHECK_FILE is
> overkill," which makes me think AC_CHECK_FILE is meant for checking
> runtime files - not build time files.
Yes, this is a reasonable restatement of the rationale for this change.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
