From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi0-f41.google.com (mail-oi0-f41.google.com [209.85.218.41]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 930E0BDC2 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 16:43:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: by oihb142 with SMTP id b142so32711132oih.3 for ; Thu, 04 Jun 2015 07:43:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=rLwMUxmmTVz5UdkT8DF01Uqigqc7LmDuANFkNp6M5/g=; b=irB0EVZYneOBi4pKGsuFJmj+LaQ6yKlgLlKoeATiHBUV7+4SPkLAE0nxKJwB4hEVam C9hkk2m6bVzLvLIJtpDALn/EDDnXsTNCWi82IIE30aYaSQyqzDtqnACorkY3MGeBKXBK /2u9qmignVLBHgx1kTdBK4OAgbhiSfa5DSTV+f3u6BFjXeAnQuq4NaXHFP5cs0PjYbWY D9biy1UdcEm++hdy88rzObDiF7l+CskX1HpQbompkchbvUj5JDv3IssopD6Y1NIJiHCv ybfR5kdT8B2kK2ogcqH6FyooGI7jj+n04jzw8lttmPJhicPqTkwnIvitmn1s9HJcDAG4 P5Bw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm06PtYtpXb1W4VHqCldNgyQl/a/7IJLz45X6p5PHqs3Awr6eJhAPuJy1Poj8pd5QI/kgsV MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.79.196 with SMTP id d187mr30588646oib.46.1433428985004; Thu, 04 Jun 2015 07:43:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.76.25.69 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 07:43:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1433357393-54434-1-git-send-email-keith.wiles@intel.com> <20150603171255.545e0df8@urahara> <20150604135542.GC24585@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 16:43:04 +0200 Message-ID: From: David Marchand To: "Wiles, Keith" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH] eal:Add new API for parsing args at rte_eal_init time 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: Thu, 04 Jun 2015 14:43:06 -0000 On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Wiles, Keith wrote: > Hi Neil and Stephen, > > I agree this is not saving instructions and adding performance, but of > code clutter and providing a layered model for the developer. The > rte_eal_init() routine still exists and I was not trying to remove that > API only layer a convenient API for common constructs. > > > >Its not a bad addition, I'm just not sure its worth having to take on the > >additional API surface to include. I'd be more supportive if you could > >enhance > >the function to allow the previously mentioned before/after flexibiilty. > >Then > >we could just deprecate rte_eal_init as an API call entirely, and use this > >instead. > > I can see we can create an API to add support for doing the applications > args first or after, but would that even be acceptable? > What's the point ? Adding stuff just for saving lines ? Are you serious about this ? -- David Marchand