From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Wiles, Keith" <keith.wiles@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] eal:Add new API for parsing args at
 rte_eal_init time
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 14:55:02 +0000
Message-ID: <D195D090.218F1%keith.wiles@intel.com>
References: <1433357393-54434-1-git-send-email-keith.wiles@intel.com>
 <20150603171255.545e0df8@urahara> <D195A551.21883%keith.wiles@intel.com>
 <20150604135542.GC24585@hmsreliant.think-freely.org>
 <D195C831.218BA%keith.wiles@intel.com>
 <CALwxeUugo_WbFcvBfgq17QiUGwwetO3wTRjNHEHmT385TkTb3A@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
To: David Marchand <david.marchand@6wind.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51FE5C388
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu,  4 Jun 2015 16:55:05 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <CALwxeUugo_WbFcvBfgq17QiUGwwetO3wTRjNHEHmT385TkTb3A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Content-ID: <88EAC35488A979459D27DF0542EA650D@intel.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

Hmmm, replied in HTML.

>On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Wiles, Keith
><keith.wiles@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.
>
>
>--=20
>
>David Marchand