From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] cfgfile: configurable comment character
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2017 13:10:44 +0000
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
Cc: "Dumitrescu, Cristian" <cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com>,
 Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
 "Jolliffe, Ian (Wind River)" <ian.jolliffe@windriver.com>
To: "Legacy, Allain" <Allain.Legacy@windriver.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga06.intel.com (mga06.intel.com [134.134.136.31])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1BD9952
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri,  3 Mar 2017 14:10:49 +0100 (CET)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <70A7408C6E1BFB41B192A929744D85238A75B2F6@ALA-MBC.corp.ad.wrs.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

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