On 6/3/16, 12:44 PM, "Neil Horman" <nhorman at tuxdriver.com> wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 04:04:14PM +0000, Wiles, Keith wrote: >> 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) >These three items seem to be the exact opposite of my suggestion. The point of >this change was to segregate the parsing of configuration away from the >initalization dpdk using that configurtion. By keeping rte_eal_init in such a >way that the command line is directly passed into it, you've not changed that >implicit binding to command line options. Neil, You maybe reading the above wrong or I wrote it wrong, which is a high possibility. I want to move the command line parsing out of DPDK an into a library, but I still believe I need to provide some backward compatibility for ABI and to reduce the learning curve. The current applications can still call the rte_eal_init(), which then calls the new lib parser for dpdk command line options and then calls rte_eal_initialize() or move to the new API rte_eal_initialize() preceded by a new library call to parse the old command line args. At some point we can deprecate the rte_eal_init() if we think it is reasonable. > >I can understand if you want to keep rte_eal_init as is for ABI purposes, but >then you should create an rte_eal_init2(foo), where foo is some handle to in >memory parsed configuration, so that applications can preform that separation. I think you describe what I had planned here. The rte_eal_initialize() routine is the new rte_eal_init2() API and the rte_eal_init() was only for backward compatibility was my thinking. I figured the argument to rte_eal_initialize() would be something to be decided, but it will mostly likely be some type of pointer to the storage. I hope that clears that up, but let me know. ++Keith > >Neil > >> - 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 >> >> >> >
