From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Neil Horman Subject: Re: [RFC] Yet another option for DPDK options Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 14:38:19 -0400 Message-ID: <20160603183819.GD12627@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> References: <20160602200837.GC12923@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <20160603102943.GC16616@bricha3-MOBL3> <20160603110129.GB17812@bricha3-MOBL3> <20160603115048.GA12627@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <8CE01283-1E89-4302-BE7D-486975B43EF6@intel.com> <20160603174437.GC12627@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <62A67FEB-AE18-43B1-8D15-27F23D5C8A7D@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Arnon Warshavsky , Panu Matilainen , "Richardson, Bruce" , Thomas Monjalon , Yuanhan Liu , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Tan, Jianfeng" , Stephen Hemminger , Christian Ehrhardt , Olivier Matz To: "Wiles, Keith" Return-path: Received: from smtp.tuxdriver.com (charlotte.tuxdriver.com [70.61.120.58]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D6A25A93 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 20:38:31 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <62A67FEB-AE18-43B1-8D15-27F23D5C8A7D@intel.com> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 06:29:13PM +0000, Wiles, Keith wrote: >=20 > On 6/3/16, 12:44 PM, "Neil Horman" wrote: >=20 > >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. > >>=20 > >> Here are my thoughts as of now, which is a combination of many sugge= stions I read from everyone=E2=80=99s emails. I hope this is not too hard= to understand. > >>=20 > >> - 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, a= rgv) 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 i= n 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 thin= king 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 th= e > >initalization dpdk using that configurtion. By keeping rte_eal_init i= n such a > >way that the command line is directly passed into it, you've not chang= ed that > >implicit binding to command line options. >=20 > Neil, >=20 > 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 compatibil= ity for ABI and to reduce the learning curve. The current applications ca= n 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_ini= t() if we think it is reasonable. >=20 > > > >I can understand if you want to keep rte_eal_init as is for ABI purpos= es, 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 sep= aration. >=20 > 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 fo= r backward compatibility was my thinking. I figured the argument to rte_e= al_initialize() would be something to be decided, but it will mostly like= ly be some type of pointer to the storage. >=20 > I hope that clears that up, but let me know. >=20 yes, that clarifies your thinking, and I agree with it. Thank you! Neil > ++Keith >=20 > > > >Neil > > > >> - The example apps args needs to be passed to the examples as is f= or now, then we can convert them one at a time if needed. > >>=20 > >> - I would like to keep the storage of the data separate from the fil= e parser as they can use the =E2=80=98set=E2=80=99 routines to build the = data storage up. > >> - Keeping them split allows for new parsers to be created, while k= eeping 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 =E2=98=BA > >>=20 > >> - 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 =E2=80=9Cprimary:= secondary=E2=80=9D. > >> - Primary string is something like =E2=80=9CEAL=E2=80=9D or =E2= =80=9CPktgen=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Ctestpmd=E2=80=9D to divide the data sto= rage 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 =E2=80=9CEAL:foobar=E2=80=9D, two levels =E2=80=9C= testpmd:foo.bar=E2=80=9D > >>=20 > >> - The secondary string is treated as a single string if it has a h= ierarchy 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 =E2=80=9CEAL:foobar=E2=80= =9D not just =E2=80=9Cfoobar=E2=80=9D secondary string. > >> - If we want to have the two split I am ok with that as w= ell meaning the API would be: > >> rte_map_get(mapObj, =E2=80=9CEAL=E2=80=9D, =E2=80=9Cfoo= .bar=E2=80=9D); > >> rte_map_set(mapObj, =E2=80=9CEAL=E2=80=9D, =E2=80=9Cfoo= .bar=E2=80=9D, value); > >> - Have the primary as a different section in the data sto= re, 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 c= oncat two string or split strings in the code. > >>=20 > >> This is as far as I have gotten and got tired of typing =E2=98=BA > >>=20 > >> I hope this will satisfy most everyone=E2=80=99s needs for now. > >>=20 > >>=20 > >> Regards, > >> Keith > >>=20 > >>=20 > >>=20 > > >=20 >=20 >=20