On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Wiles, Keith <keith.wiles at intel.com> wrote:
> Hi Neil and Stephen, > > I agree this is not saving instructions and adding performance, but of > code clutter and providing a layered model for the developer. The > rte_eal_init() routine still exists and I was not trying to remove that > API only layer a convenient API for common constructs. > > > >Its not a bad addition, I'm just not sure its worth having to take on the > >additional API surface to include. I'd be more supportive if you could > >enhance > >the function to allow the previously mentioned before/after flexibiilty. > >Then > >we could just deprecate rte_eal_init as an API call entirely, and use this > >instead. > > I can see we can create an API to add support for doing the applications > args first or after, but would that even be acceptable? > What's the point ? Adding stuff just for saving lines ? Are you serious about this ? -- David Marchand
