From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.mhcomputing.net (master.mhcomputing.net [74.208.228.170]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 194A347D0 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 23:40:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail.mhcomputing.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9D187D7; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 14:40:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 14:40:18 -0700 From: Matthew Hall To: "Wiles, Keith" Cc: Arnon Warshavsky , Neil Horman , Panu Matilainen , "Richardson, Bruce" , Thomas Monjalon , Yuanhan Liu , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Tan, Jianfeng" , Stephen Hemminger , Christian Ehrhardt , Olivier Matz Message-ID: <20160603214018.GB16022@mhcomputing.net> References: <8CE01283-1E89-4302-BE7D-486975B43EF6@intel.com> <20160603174437.GC12627@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <62A67FEB-AE18-43B1-8D15-27F23D5C8A7D@intel.com> <20160603183819.GD12627@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] Yet another option for DPDK options X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 21:40:19 -0000 On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 07:07:50PM +0000, Wiles, Keith wrote: > If I understand your code above the API would pass in a default value if one > did not exist in the storage, which I guess is reasonable. Anyone think this > is a good idea or not? This model has worked very well in my code at least. It keeps good reference locality between where the option is accessed and how it is configured and what it is called... all to the same line of code. Matthew.