17/10/2018 13:45, Gaëtan Rivet: > Hi Thomas, > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 11:41:53AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > I still think all the wording is incorrect. > > Please start by describing what is "param", "flag" and "option" in your > > mind. > > They are all mentioned in this file. > > Are you sure rte_param is the right name? > > > > I suggested the name rte_param, I think the original proposal was > rte_lib_init, which to me unduly diminished the intent of these structures.
I think the right word is "run-time option". An option can have a parameter. If this API is not supporting options with parameters, the name is really misleading. > I think rte_param seems proper, this is a generic parameter object > description. The integer "enabled" is described as a flag in the > structure, as it is used to flag the init routine down the road to > trigger the init callback associated with this parameter. "enabled" can be documented as the result of the option parsing. If the option is given to rte_eal_init, it becomes enabled. > eal_option is reminiscent of optarg / optind of getopt() family, > which seems fitting. > > I don't mean to overstep Kevin's role defending his work, but given > that I proposed some of this naming and pushed for this direction to be > taken in the first place, I feel I should help explain my propositions. > > rte_param could become rte_parameter or rte_option instead, eal_option > could become opt_string or opt_str, and so on, do you have specific > ideas about proper names? rte_option looks OK. The global picture may be better explained I think. Any help with wording and documentation is appreciated, thanks. > > 16/10/2018 17:57, Kevin Laatz: > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_param.h > > > @@ -0,0 +1,91 @@ > > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause > > > + * Copyright(c) 2018 Intel Corporation. > > > + */ > > > + > > > +#ifndef __INCLUDE_RTE_PARAM_H__ > > > +#define __INCLUDE_RTE_PARAM_H__ > > > + > > > +/** > > > + * @file > > > + * > > > + * This API introduces the ability to register callbacks with EAL. When > > > + * registering a callback, the application also provides an option as > > > part > > > + * of the struct used to register. If the option is passed to EAL when > > > + * running a DPDK application, the relevant callback will be called at > > > the > > > + * end of EAL init. For example, passing --telemetry will make the > > > + * telemetry init be called at the end of EAL init. > > > + * > > Citing --telemetry here is a bad idea, this file is lib-agnostic, > --telemetry is not assured to be relevant. > > > > + * The register API can be used to resolve circular dependency issues > > > + * between EAL and the library. The library uses EAL but is also > > > initialized by > > > + * EAL. Hence, EAL depends on the init function of the library. The API > > > + * introduced in rte_param allows us to register the library init with > > > EAL > > > + * (passing a function pointer) and avoid the circular dependency. > > > + */ > >
