<Snipping lots of stuff>
On 2015-06-04 23:27, Chilikin, Andrey wrote:
>> Its not a bad addition, I'm just not sure its worth having to take on the
>> additional API surface to include. I'd be more supportive if you could
>> enhance
>> the function to allow the previously mentioned before/after flexibiilty.
>> Then we
>> could just deprecate rte_eal_init as an API call entirely, and use this
>> instead.
>
> Before/after would be very useful, a lot of applications use only "-c" and
> "-n" EAL command line parameters and "-c" in many cases is redundant as
> application can calculate core mask from its own parameters, and "-n" just a
> required parameter which can be defaulted to a platform specific value. So in
> addition to rte_set_application_usage_hook() it would be nice to have some
> more general way of overwriting eal initialization parameters.
I've always found it a bit strange that DPDK forces argv handling this
way. The application will anyway have to setup system-specific stuff
(buffer count etc) for the ports to use, so special-casing memory and
core setup seems strange. I think it would be more logical to have EAL
configuration from a structure like for the ports:
struct dpdk_conf conf =
{
.core_mask = 0x7,
.huge_pages = 1,
[...]
};
rte_eal_init(&conf);
And make the current argv parser optional, i.e., something like
int main(argc, argv)
{
struct dpdk_conf conf;
ret = rte_eal_parse_argv(&conf);
rte_eal_init(&conf);
argc -= ret; ...
}
// Simon
