[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 6/6] cfgfile: add support for empty value string

Legacy, Allain Allain.Legacy at windriver.com
Mon Mar 27 13:12:32 CEST 2017


We have a legacy file format that we need to support.   Other parts of our system are able to handle a "key=" entry in the file so we are trying to gain parity with those parsers. 

Allain


Allain Legacy, Software Developer
direct 613.270.2279  fax 613.492.7870 skype allain.legacy
 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dumitrescu, Cristian [mailto:cristian.dumitrescu at intel.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 6:55 AM
> To: Legacy, Allain; RICHARDSON, BRUCE
> Cc: yuanhan.liu at linux.intel.com; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 6/6] cfgfile: add support for empty value string
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Allain Legacy [mailto:allain.legacy at windriver.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2017 1:11 PM
> > To: Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson at intel.com>; Dumitrescu,
> > Cristian <cristian.dumitrescu at intel.com>
> > Cc: yuanhan.liu at linux.intel.com; dev at dpdk.org
> > Subject: [PATCH v2 6/6] cfgfile: add support for empty value string
> >
> > This commit adds support to the cfgfile library for parsing a
> > key=value line that has no value string specified (e.g., "key=").
> > This can be used to override a configuration attribute that has a
> > default value or default list of values to set it back to an undefined
> > value to disable functionality.
> >
> 
> IMO allowing empty string key values is confusing and should not be allowed.
> 
> I think there are better alternatives for setting a key to its default value:
> 	key = default
> 	key = DEFAULT
> 	key = <the specific default value>
> 
> Any reason not to use these approaches?



More information about the dev mailing list