>-----Original Message----- >From: Sunil Kumar Kori >Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 11:15 AM >To: David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com> >Cc: dev@dpdk.org; tho...@monjalon.net; Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran ><jer...@marvell.com> >Subject: RE: [EXT] [PATCH 4/8] trace: avoid confusion on optarg > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com> >>Sent: Monday, May 4, 2020 7:39 PM >>To: Sunil Kumar Kori <sk...@marvell.com> >>Cc: dev@dpdk.org; tho...@monjalon.net; Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran >><jer...@marvell.com> >>Subject: Re: [EXT] [PATCH 4/8] trace: avoid confusion on optarg >> >>On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 9:55 AM Sunil Kumar Kori <sk...@marvell.com> >>wrote: >>> >>> Overall, it looks okay but I think "args" will be more relevant as >>> each API says >>XXX_args_save(). >>> What do you say ? >> >>No opinion, the function name itself indicates we are dealing with >arguments. >>I can go with args if you like. >No problem. Let it be as it is. > Acked-by: Sunil Kumar Kori <sk...@mavell.com>
>> >> >>-- >>David Marchand
