2017-03-24 14:48, Wiles, Keith: > > > On Mar 24, 2017, at 8:09 AM, Olivier Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Keith, > > > > On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 16:13:21 +0000, "Wiles, Keith" <keith.wi...@intel.com> > > wrote: > >>> On Mar 10, 2017, at 9:25 AM, Wiles, Keith <keith.wi...@intel.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> I would like to request for comments on a new CLI design and get any > >>> feedback. I have attached the cli.rst text, which is still a work in > >>> progress for you review. > >>> > >>> I have also ported the CLI to a version of Pktgen on the ‘dev’ branch of > >>> the repo in DPDK.org. > >>> > >>> http://dpdk.org/browse/apps/pktgen-dpdk/refs/?h=dev > >>> > >>> I would like to submit the CLI library to be used in DPDK, if that seems > >>> reasonable to everyone. I need more testing of the API and Pktgen, but I > >>> feel it has a simpler design, easier to understand and hopefully make it > >>> easier for developers to add commands. > >>> > >>> As an example I quickly converted over testpmd from CMDLINE to CLI (I > >>> just add a -I option to select CLI instead) and reduced the > >>> test-pmd/cmdline.c file from 12.6K lines to about 4.5K lines. I did not > >>> fully test the code, but the ones I did test seem to work. > >>> > >>> I do not expect DPDK to convert to the new CLI only if it makes sense and > >>> I am not suggesting to replace CMDLINE library. > >>> > >>> If you play with the new CLI in pktgen and see any problems or want to > >>> suggest new features or changes please let me know. > >>> > >>> Comments on the cli.rst text is also welcome, but the cli.rst is not > >>> complete. I think this file needs to be broken into two one to explain > >>> the example and another to explain CLI internals. > >> > >> Any more comments on the CLI code for DPDK. > >> > >> Should I submit a patch for DPDK or would it be better to push this into > >> its own repo on DPDK? > >> > > > > I agree that there is a large possibility of improvements in librte_cmdline. > > > > Just for reference, I think this design was not that bad at the time it > > was introduced: > > - declaring commands as static variables makes sense when running on > > baremetal without malloc library > > - implementing a readline-like part was also needed because not available > > on baremetal > > - masking structures to the user was harder due to the lack of malloc > > - having a cli is really helpful for a program like testpmd (both for > > a user or for an automatic test program) > > I agree, but we do need to use a better version. > > > > > Few efforts were made to enhance this library because it's not the heart > > of dpdk. > > True CLI is not the heart of DPDK, but adding a better supported CLI could be > a reasonable addition to DPDK for developers to create a real produce instead > of cmdline, which is stated was not a CLI for a real product.
We can ask to the techboard whether CLI is in DPDK scope. My position: it is neither in the scope of the repo nor in the scope of dpdk.org. > > The current status is acceptable to me: this library is mostly used > > internally in dpdk for test apps, and application developers are free > > to use a better one if they want. > > > > But adding another cli lib in dpdk does not make sense to me. I think > > the proper direction would be to remove the cli from dpdk and use a > > good cli library that is available in distros. But for that: > > - we need to find one > > - we need to update all examples/tests that use the cmdline, and > > that will be a lot of work > > - we need to enhance dpdk framework to better manage deps with > > external libraries I agree we could convert testpmd and examples to a new CLI lib. Then we could remove librte_cmdline from DPDK. > Replacing applications with a new CLI is background work and we do not need > to toss out cmdline until all have been converted, which could take a while. > We can move cmdline out of DPDK, but the problem is most of the current > applications require cmdline and the developer would be required to pull DPDK > and cmdline. I would suggest we have both in DPDK and slowly convert the apps > to use the new CLI. > > If we split up DPDK repo into smaller repos and use something like the ‘repo’ > command with a catalog file then it would be mostly transparent to the > developer we have multiple repos. Until that day it does seem more reasonable > to have CLI in DPDK repo, but I am willing to have it in a different repo for > now. It is reasonnable for an application to have some dependencies. It is commonly managed in three ways: - detect the lib on the system - download the lib as part of the build process - ask user to download it > > So, in my opinion, the CLI you are proposing should be hosted on another > > repo. > > I will contact Thomas to setup a new repo for the CLI. We had a private discussion. I have tried to put here my conclusions.
