[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: support action with any config object type

[Dekel Peled]

Thanks, PSB.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko at solarflare.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 11:09 AM
> To: Dekel Peled <dekelp at mellanox.com>; Adrien Mazarguil
> <adrien.mazarguil at 6wind.com>; wenzhuo.lu at intel.com;
> jingjing.wu at intel.com; bernard.iremonger at intel.com; Yongseok Koh
> <yskoh at mellanox.com>; Shahaf Shuler <shahafs at mellanox.com>; Slava
> Ovsiienko <viacheslavo at mellanox.com>; arybchenko at solarflare.com
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Ori Kam <orika at mellanox.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: support action with any config
> object type
> 
> On 01.07.2019 17:10, Dekel Peled wrote:
> > In current implementation, an action which requires parameters must
> > accept them enclosed in a structure.
> > Some actions require a single, trivial type parameter, but it still
> > must be enclosed in a structure.
> > This obligation results in multiple, action-specific structures, each
> > containing a single trivial type parameter.
> >
> > This patch introduces a new approach, allowing an action configuration
> > object of any type, trivial or a structure.
> >
> > This patch introduces, in test-pmd, a new macro ARG_ENTRY_HTON, to
> > allow using a single argument, not enclosed in a structure.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dekel Peled <dekelp at mellanox.com>
> 
> The term "object" confuses me a bit, but I'm not a native speaker so it could
> be just my wrong association. I'd prefer "configuration data".

In previous version I wrote just "action configuration", and changed to "action configuration object" per Adrien's suggestion. I think it is better, but if it causes confusion maybe it should be changed.

Adrien, what do you think? Does "configuration data" carry the correct meaning?

> 
> Anyway,
> Acked-by: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko at solarflare.com>