> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sevincer, Abdullah <abdullah.sevin...@intel.com>

> +static uint8_t evdev_id;
> +static uint8_t num_ports;
> +static uint8_t ports[MAX_PORTS_QUEUES];
>+static uint8_t num_queues;
> +static uint8_t queues[MAX_PORTS_QUEUES]; static uint32_t 
> +enable_shw_all_eventdev_queues; static uint32_t

<snip>

> +enable_shw_all_eventdev_ports; static uint32_t 
> +enable_dump_eventdev_xstats; static uint32_t 
> +enable_eventdev_reset_xstats; static uint32_t 
> +enable_shw_eventdev_device_xstats;

>+How about keeping  a struct to maintain  all the data together that way you 
>know on which all ports and queues of eventdev we have requested display. 
>+You can refer the existing code "struct desc_param" to see how this is done 
>Then you can declare global variables of type struct eventdev_params 
>eventdev_var[MAX_EVENTDEV_DEV] to handle data of all evendev ids as an array, 
>instead of keeping >+many global variables.
.

>+Ex: 
>+struct eventdev_params {
>+              unit8_t eventdev_id;
>+              unit8_t ports[MAX_PORTS_QUEUES]
>+               unit8_t queues[MAX_PORTS_QUEUES]
>+               static uint8_t num_queues
>+               static uint8_t num_ports
>+
>+      static uint32_t enable_shw_all_eventdev_queues;
>+      static uint32_t enable_shw_all_eventdev_ports;
>+      static uint32_t enable_dump_eventdev_xstats;
>+      static uint32_t enable_eventdev_reset_xstats;
>+      static uint32_t enable_shw_eventdev_device_xstats;
>+}

Also, all global variables are tied to a command itself like "static uint32_t 
enable_shw_port_priv" or "static uint32_t enable_shw_ring" . I also want the 
same for eventdev params to be called a command like the others in the file. If 
user wants he/she can chain commands. The "struct desc_param" is handling one 
command only but its 3 parameters (queue_id, offset and num) are put in the 
structure, for easy parsing. None of the command line arguments, hence global 
variables are handled/put in a structure. Would you like to change that for 
proc app going forward?


Reply via email to