On 6/3/16, 2:00 PM, "dev on behalf of Wiles, Keith" <dev-bounces at dpdk.org on behalf of keith.wiles at intel.com> wrote:
>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. One more thing. I had not thought about default values as the defaults are handle directly by the code when an option is not applied. I think it should be left up to the developer to add default values to the storage or handle it when an option is not found in the storage. If I understand your code above the API would pass in a default value if one did not exist in the storage, which I guess is reasonable. Anyone think this is a good idea or not? > >Does that make sense? > >++Keith >
