On 02.07.2019 12:57, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 08:42:41AM +0000, Dekel Peled wrote:
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?
Well I'm no native speaker either but "object" is the term used in the C
standard with a well-defined meaning [1] and encompasses everything
(integers, floats, structures, unions, functions, pointers, arrays):
"region of data storage in the execution environment, the contents of which
can represent values"
I think it's a bit less vague than "data" because whenever objects are
mentioned in the standard, they always have a type. There's no such thing as
a C object without one, and rte_flow puts a lot of emphasis on documenting
them.
int foo;
struct { ... } foo;
double foo;
char foo[];
void *foo;
Whatever the type, would you refer to "foo" itself as an "object" or as
"data"?
Adrien, thanks a lot. Now "object" looks OK and better than "data".
Unrelated, but you must remove ARG_ENTRY_HTON from this patch since there's
no testpmd change in there that requires it. There's no tolerance for dead
code in testpmd as it doesn't expose an API.
Thanks.
[1] 3.14 "object"
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1256.pdf
