On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 03:22:14PM +0200, David Marchand wrote: > On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 5:42 PM Bruce Richardson > <[1]bruce.richard...@intel.com> wrote: > > Rather than using enum values for CPU flags, which means the symbols > don't > exist on other architectures, provide a flag lookup by name, > allowing us to > unconditionally check for a CPU flag. > > Did you consider passing a string for the CPU architecture rather than > an enum? > It would have to be compared to RTE_ARCH in > rte_cpu_get_flagname_enabled. > Or to accomodate with x86_64/i686, this could be a cpu arch family. > This avoids adding a new C type that seems quite limited wrt its uses. > -- > David Marchand >
I'm not sure I really see the value in having string names for the architecture values, I think it would be a lot more clunky to manage rather than having an enum value. The key difference vs the flags is that the flags are only valid per-architecture while the architecture defines can be globally valid, and secondly there is a finite, and small, number of architectures compared to the number of flags supported. If you feel strongly about it I can investigate it, but I'm not sure I see the value in doing so right now if the only benefit is avoiding the enum. /Bruce
