Thanks, PSB. > -----Original Message----- > From: Adrien Mazarguil <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 12:57 PM > To: Dekel Peled <[email protected]> > Cc: Andrew Rybchenko <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; Yongseok Koh <[email protected]>; > Shahaf Shuler <[email protected]>; Slava Ovsiienko > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Ori Kam > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: support action with any config > object type > > On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 08:42:41AM +0000, Dekel Peled wrote: > > Thanks, PSB. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Andrew Rybchenko <[email protected]> > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 11:09 AM > > > To: Dekel Peled <[email protected]>; Adrien Mazarguil > > > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > > > [email protected]; [email protected]; Yongseok Koh > > > <[email protected]>; Shahaf Shuler <[email protected]>; Slava > > > Ovsiienko <[email protected]>; [email protected] > > > Cc: [email protected]; Ori Kam <[email protected]> > > > 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 <[email protected]> > > > > > > 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"?
Understood, staying with "object". > > 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. OK, I'll remove it from this patch and add it to the relevant series. > > Thanks. > > [1] 3.14 "object" > > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww. > open- > std.org%2Fjtc1%2Fsc22%2Fwg14%2Fwww%2Fdocs%2Fn1256.pdf&data > =02%7C01%7Cdekelp%40mellanox.com%7C305d2ae37a3b411ea91608d6fed3 > afbf%7Ca652971c7d2e4d9ba6a4d149256f461b%7C0%7C1%7C63697658247762 > 5253&sdata=8wcANpiGcjbhVMFHWs1wRB%2FnkvoSOawmHm8bkavY2 > U4%3D&reserved=0 > > -- > Adrien Mazarguil > 6WIND
