Thanks, PSB. > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Rybchenko <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 1:12 PM > To: Adrien Mazarguil <[email protected]>; Dekel Peled > <[email protected]> > Cc: [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 02.07.2019 12:57, Adrien Mazarguil wrote: > > 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"? > > Adrien, thanks a lot. Now "object" looks OK and better than "data".
Agreed, 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. > > > > 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%7C65a76c486a4441d6a05e08d6fed5 > ba8d%7Ca652971c7d2e4d9ba6a4d149256f461b%7C0%7C1%7C6369765912801 > 35692&sdata=INAfwwiVUvf6c19OcTiW1K27qeIHhrk7Nk2uVu3EDjA%3D > &reserved=0 > >
