[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/3] EAL change for using a config file for DPDK

[Thomas Monjalon]

24/01/2019 14:54, Ferruh Yigit:
> On 1/23/2019 8:26 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 23/01/2019 20:31, Ferruh Yigit:
> >> On 7/13/2017 11:07 AM, kubax.kozak at intel.com (Kuba Kozak) wrote:
> >>> This patchset introduce a mechanism for running dpdk application with 
> >>> parameters provided by configuration file.
> >>>
> >>> A new API for EAL takes a config file data type - either loaded from
> >>> file, or built up programmatically in the application - and extracts
> >>> DPDK parameters from it to be used when eal init is called. 
> >>> This allows apps to have an alternative method to configure EAL,
> >>> other than via command-line parameters.
> >>>
> >>> Reworked applications are used to demonstrate the new eal API.
> >>> If a --cfgfile-path <path> option is passed into command line non
> >>> EAL section, then the file is loaded and used by app. If a file
> >>> called config.ini is present in current working directory, and
> >>> no --cfgfile-path option is passed in, config.ini file will be
> >>> loaded and used by app.
> >>>
> >>> Patch "app/testpmd: add parse options from JSON cfg file" 
> >>> demonstrates the usage of JSON instead of INI file format. 
> >>> JSON file can be called the same way as above, 
> >>> through --cfgfile-path <path> argument.
> >>> ---
> >>> this patch depends on:
> >>> "Rework cfgfile API to enable apps config file support"
> >>>
> >>> v5:
> >>>   changed define "RTE_DEVTYPE_VIRTUAL" to "RTE_DEVTYPE_UNDEFINED"
> >>>   due to compilation errors (changes on current master).
> >>>
> >>> v4:
> >>>  Code optimalisation in parse_vdev_devices() function.
> >>>  Moved some functions from librte_eal/bsdapp and librte_eal/linuxapp
> >>>  to the librte_eal/common.
> >>>  Bug fixes.
> >>>
> >>> v3: 
> >>>  split one patchset into two distinct patchsets:
> >>>  1. cfgfile library and TEST app changes
> >>>  2. EAL changes and examples (this patchset depends on cfgfile)
> >>>
> >>> v2:
> >>>   lib eal:
> >>> 	Rework of rte_eal_configure(struct rte_cfgfile *cfg, char *prgname).
> >>> 	Now this function load data from cfg structure and did initial
> >>> 	initialization of EAL arguments. Vdev argument are stored in different
> >>> 	subsections eg. DPDK.vdev0, DPDK.vdev1 etc. After execution of this
> >>> 	function it is necessary to call rte_eal_init to complete EAL
> >>> 	initialization. There is no more merging arguments from different
> >>> 	sources (cfg file and command line).
> >>>   	Added non_eal_configure to testpmd application.
> >>> 	Function maintain the same functionality as rte_eal_configure but
> >>> 	for non-eal arguments. 
> >>>   	Added config JSON feature to testpmd last patch from patchset contain
> >>> 	example showing use of .json configuration files.
> >>>
> >>>   lib cfgfile:
> >>>   	Rework of add_section(), add_entry() new implementation
> >>>   	New members allocated_entries/sections, free_entries/sections
> >>> 	in rte_cfgfile structure, change in array of pointers
> >>> 	**sections, **entries instead of *sections[], *entries[]
> >>>   	Add  set_entry() to update/overwrite already existing entry in cfgfile
> >>> 	struct
> >>>   	Add save() function to save on disc cfgfile structure in INI format
> >>>   	Rework of existing load() function  simplifying the code
> >>>   	Add unit test realloc_sections() in TEST app for testing realloc/malloc
> >>> 	of new API functions, add test for save() function
> >>>
> >>> Kuba Kozak (3):
> >>>   eal: add functions parsing EAL arguments
> >>>   app/testpmd: add parse options from cfg file
> >>>   app/testpmd: add parse options from JSON cfg file
> >>
> >> This patchset is idle more than a year now.
> >> It solves problem of eal parameters, it doesn't remove them but at least moves
> >> from command line to config file.
> >>
> >> The patch seems mostly done, but what is the status of it, do we want to
> >> continue it?
> >> And if we want to continue it can this be a good candidate for GCOS?
> > 
> > I think we must focus on reorganization of EAL first.
> > When the options parsing will be better isolated,
> > and accessible from API independant of rte_eal_init,
> > then we could provide some helpers to use those APIs
> > for a config file, a custom command line or anything else.
> 
> Is there any actions do we need to take when patches are rejected?

Not sure I understand your question.
Any opinion about such plan?