Hmmm, replied in HTML. >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 ?
Wow, OK it is dropped. > > >-- > >David Marchand
