From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Marchand Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] eal:Add new API for parsing args at rte_eal_init time Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 16:43:04 +0200 Message-ID: References: <1433357393-54434-1-git-send-email-keith.wiles@intel.com> <20150603171255.545e0df8@urahara> <20150604135542.GC24585@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" To: "Wiles, Keith" Return-path: Received: from mail-oi0-f41.google.com (mail-oi0-f41.google.com [209.85.218.41]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 930E0BDC2 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 16:43:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: by oihb142 with SMTP id b142so32711132oih.3 for ; Thu, 04 Jun 2015 07:43:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Wiles, Keith 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