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

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 1/24/2019 4:06 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 24/01/2019 15:46, Ferruh Yigit:
>> On 1/24/2019 2:32 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>> When patch status updated, they will disappear from our radar, should we do
>> something to remind us this kind of work needs to be done and already some
>> patches are available to benefit.
>>
>> Keeping them in the patchwork is one option, but it is getting hard to manage as
>> the list grows there, and not all work stays relevant/active in the backlog.
>> Also their status is not clear in the patchwork backlog.
> 
> I think we should add an item in the roadmap with a link to this patch.

OK. Do you want me do it?