On 6/3/16, 1:52 PM, "Arnon Warshavsky" <arnon at qwilt.com<mailto:arnon at qwilt.com>> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:38 PM, Neil Horman <nhorman at tuxdriver.com<mailto:nhorman at tuxdriver.com>> wrote: On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 06:29:13PM +0000, Wiles, Keith wrote: > > On 6/3/16, 12:44 PM, "Neil Horman" <nhorman at tuxdriver.com<mailto: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. > yes, that clarifies your thinking, and I agree with it. Thank you! Neil > ++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 > >> > >> > >> > > > > > Keith What about the data types of the values? I would assume that as a library it can provide the service of typed get/set and not leave conversion and validation to the app. rte_map_get_int(map,section,key) rte_map_get_double(...) rte_map_get_string(...) rte_map_get_bytes(...,destBuff , destBuffSize) //e.g byte array of RSS key This may also allow some basic validity of the configuration file Another point I forgot about is default values. We sometimes use a notation where the app also specifies a default value in case the configuration did not specify it rte_map_get_int(map,section,key , defaultValue ) and specify if this was a mandatory that has no default rte_map_get_int_crash_if_missing (map,section,key) /Arnon Arnon, Yes, I too was thinking about access type APIs, but had not come to a full conclusion yet. As long as the API for get/put can return any value, we can add a layer on top of these primary get/put APIs to do some basic type checking. This way the developer can add his/her own type checking APIs or we provide a couple basic types for simple values. Does that make sense? ++Keith
