From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga06.intel.com (mga06.intel.com [134.134.136.31]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1BD9952 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 14:10:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga005.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.41]) by orsmga104.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Mar 2017 05:10:48 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.35,237,1484035200"; d="scan'208";a="71224742" Received: from bricha3-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.237.221.61]) by orsmga005.jf.intel.com with SMTP; 03 Mar 2017 05:10:45 -0800 Received: by (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 03 Mar 2017 13:10:45 +0000 Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2017 13:10:44 +0000 From: Bruce Richardson To: "Legacy, Allain" Cc: "Dumitrescu, Cristian" , Yuanhan Liu , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Jolliffe, Ian (Wind River)" Message-ID: <20170303131044.GA207028@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1488482971-170522-1-git-send-email-allain.legacy@windriver.com> <1488482971-170522-2-git-send-email-allain.legacy@windriver.com> <20170302211015.GA18940@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> <20170303005337.GB18844@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <3EB4FA525960D640B5BDFFD6A3D8912652758102@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <70A7408C6E1BFB41B192A929744D85238A75B22B@ALA-MBC.corp.ad.wrs.com> <20170303121020.GA193932@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> <70A7408C6E1BFB41B192A929744D85238A75B2F6@ALA-MBC.corp.ad.wrs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <70A7408C6E1BFB41B192A929744D85238A75B2F6@ALA-MBC.corp.ad.wrs.com> Organization: Intel Research and =?iso-8859-1?Q?De=ACvel?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?opment?= Ireland Ltd. User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.0 (2017-02-23) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/5] cfgfile: configurable comment character X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2017 13:10:50 -0000 On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 12:17:47PM +0000, Legacy, Allain wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bruce Richardson [mailto:bruce.richardson@intel.com] > > Also, for a single parameter like a comment char, I don't think we need to go > > creating a separate structure. The current flags parameter is unused, so just > > replace it with the comment char one. With using the structure, any additions > In my earlier patch, I proprose using a "global" flag to indicate that an unnamed section exists so the flags argument would still be needed. Ok, good point, I missed that. > > > to the struct would be an ABI change anyway, so I see little point in using it, > > unless we already know of additional parameters we will be adding in future. > We already have 2 parameters in mind - flags, and comment char. I don't feel that combining the two in a single enum is particularly good since it would be better to allow the application the freedom to set an arbitrary comment character and not be locked in to any static list that we choose (see my previous email response). > I also agree on not using enums and not limiting comment chars. I don't particularly like config structs, and would prefer individual flags and comment char parameters - given it's not a huge list of params, just 2 - but no big deal either way. /Bruce