Thanks, PSB. > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com> > Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 11:09 AM > To: Dekel Peled <dek...@mellanox.com>; Adrien Mazarguil > <adrien.mazarg...@6wind.com>; wenzhuo...@intel.com; > jingjing...@intel.com; bernard.iremon...@intel.com; Yongseok Koh > <ys...@mellanox.com>; Shahaf Shuler <shah...@mellanox.com>; Slava > Ovsiienko <viachesl...@mellanox.com>; arybche...@solarflare.com > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Ori Kam <or...@mellanox.com> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: support action with any config > object type > > On 01.07.2019 17:10, Dekel Peled wrote: > > In current implementation, an action which requires parameters must > > accept them enclosed in a structure. > > Some actions require a single, trivial type parameter, but it still > > must be enclosed in a structure. > > This obligation results in multiple, action-specific structures, each > > containing a single trivial type parameter. > > > > This patch introduces a new approach, allowing an action configuration > > object of any type, trivial or a structure. > > > > This patch introduces, in test-pmd, a new macro ARG_ENTRY_HTON, to > > allow using a single argument, not enclosed in a structure. > > > > Signed-off-by: Dekel Peled <dek...@mellanox.com> > > The term "object" confuses me a bit, but I'm not a native speaker so it could > be just my wrong association. I'd prefer "configuration data".
In previous version I wrote just "action configuration", and changed to "action configuration object" per Adrien's suggestion. I think it is better, but if it causes confusion maybe it should be changed. Adrien, what do you think? Does "configuration data" carry the correct meaning? > > Anyway, > Acked-by: Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com>
