Thanks, PSB.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarg...@6wind.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 12:57 PM
> To: Dekel Peled <dek...@mellanox.com>
> Cc: Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com>;
> wenzhuo...@intel.com; jingjing...@intel.com;
> bernard.iremon...@intel.com; Yongseok Koh <ys...@mellanox.com>;
> Shahaf Shuler <shah...@mellanox.com>; Slava Ovsiienko
> <viachesl...@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Ori Kam
> <or...@mellanox.com>
> 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 <arybche...@solarflare.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 11:09 AM
> > > To: Dekel Peled <dek...@mellanox.com>; Adrien Mazarguil
> > > <adrien.mazarg...@6wind.com>; wenzhuo...@intel.com;
> > > jingjing...@intel.com; bernard.iremon...@intel.com; Yongseok Koh
> > > <ys...@mellanox.com>; Shahaf Shuler <shah...@mellanox.com>; Slava
> > > Ovsiienko <viachesl...@mellanox.com>; arybche...@solarflare.com
> > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Ori Kam <or...@mellanox.com>
> > > 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 <dek...@mellanox.com>
> > >
> > > 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
