From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CB9C1B952 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2018 10:40:05 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: UNSCANNABLE X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Dec 2018 01:40:04 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,352,1539673200"; d="scan'208";a="129908237" Received: from bricha3-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.237.221.32]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with SMTP; 14 Dec 2018 01:40:02 -0800 Received: by (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 14 Dec 2018 09:39:59 +0000 Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 09:39:58 +0000 From: Bruce Richardson To: Stephen Hemminger Cc: Jakub Grajciar , dev@dpdk.org Message-ID: <20181214093958.GA16664@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <20181213133051.18779-1-jgrajcia@cisco.com> <20181213100709.2df8f718@xeon-e3> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181213100709.2df8f718@xeon-e3> Organization: Intel Research and Development Ireland Ltd. User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC v3] /net: memory interface (memif) 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, 14 Dec 2018 09:40:06 -0000 On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 10:07:09AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 14:30:51 +0100 > Jakub Grajciar wrote: > > > + > > +typedef uint16_t memif_region_index_t; > > +typedef uint32_t memif_region_offset_t; > > +typedef uint64_t memif_region_size_t; > > +typedef uint16_t memif_ring_index_t; > > +typedef uint32_t memif_interface_id_t; > > +typedef uint16_t memif_version_t; > > +typedef uint8_t memif_log2_ring_size_t; > > + > > Seems very typedef heavy to me. Having more typedefs > does not improve the readability. > +1 Our coding guidelines generally recommend against using typedefs, though they generally refer to structure typedefs rather than typedefs for basic types. /Bruce