Sorry, I deleted all of the text as it was getting a bit long.
Here are my thoughts as of now, which is a combination of many suggestions I
read from everyone?s emails. I hope this is not too hard to understand.
- Break out the current command line options out of the DPDK common code and
move into a new lib.
- At this point I was thinking of keeping the rte_eal_init(args, argv) API
and just have it pass the args/argv to the new lib to create the data storage.
- Maybe move the rte_eal_init() API to the new lib or keep it in the
common eal code. Do not want to go hog wild.
- The rte_eal_init(args, argv) would then call to the new API
rte_eal_initialize(void), which in turn queries the data storage. (still
thinking here)
- The example apps args needs to be passed to the examples as is for now,
then we can convert them one at a time if needed.
- I would like to keep the storage of the data separate from the file parser as
they can use the ?set? routines to build the data storage up.
- Keeping them split allows for new parsers to be created, while keeping the
data storage from changing.
- The rte_cfg code could be modified to use the new configuration if someone
wants to take on that task ?
- Next is the data storage and how we can access the data in a clean simple way.
- I want to have some simple level of hierarchy in the data.
- Having a string containing at least two levels ?primary:secondary?.
- Primary string is something like ?EAL? or ?Pktgen? or ?testpmd? to
divide the data storage into logical major groups.
- The primary allows us to have groups and then we can have common
secondary strings in different groups if needed.
- Secondary string can be whatever the developer of that group would like
e.g. simple ?EAL:foobar?, two levels ?testpmd:foo.bar?
- The secondary string is treated as a single string if it has a hierarchy or
not, but referencing a single value in the data storage.
- Key value pairs (KVP) or a hashmap data store.
- The key here is the whole string ?EAL:foobar? not just ?foobar?
secondary string.
- If we want to have the two split I am ok with that as well meaning
the API would be:
rte_map_get(mapObj, ?EAL?, ?foo.bar?);
rte_map_set(mapObj, ?EAL?, ?foo.bar?, value);
- Have the primary as a different section in the data store, would
allow for dumping that section maybe easier, not sure.
- I am leaning toward
- Not going to try splitting up the string or parse it as it is up to the
developer to make it unique in the data store.
- Use a code design to make the strings simple to use without having typos be a
problem.
- Not sure what the design is yet, but I do not want to have to concat two
string or split strings in the code.
This is as far as I have gotten and got tired of typing ?
I hope this will satisfy most everyone?s needs for now.
Regards,
Keith
