[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] Add external parser support for unknown commands.
Wiles, Roger Keith
keith.wiles at windriver.com
Mon Nov 3 17:50:15 CET 2014
> On Nov 3, 2014, at 10:06 AM, Neil Horman <nhorman at tuxdriver.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 02:25:51PM +0000, Wiles, Roger Keith wrote:
>>> On Nov 3, 2014, at 8:16 AM, Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson at intel.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 02:08:46PM +0000, Wiles, Roger Keith wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 3, 2014, at 4:41 AM, Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson at intel.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 04:28:28PM -0600, Keith Wiles wrote:
>>>>>> Allow for a external parser to handle the command line if the
>>>>>> command is not found and the developer has called the routine
>>>>>> int cmdline_set_external_parser(struct cmdline * cl,
>>>>>> cmdline_external_parser_t parser);
>>>>>> function to set the function pointer.
>>>>>> The function for the external parser function should return CMDLINE_PARSE_NOMATCH
>>>>>> if not able to match the command requested or zero is handled.
>>>>>> Prototype of external routine:
>>>>>> int (*cmdline_external_parser_t)(struct cmdline * cl, const char * buy);
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Keith Wiles <keith.wiles at windriver.com>
>>>>> Hi Keith,
>>>>> what is the expected use case for this? Is it for embedding other programming languages alongside the existing DPDK command-line or some other purpose? [Perhaps the use case could be called out in the patch description]
>>>> Hi Bruce,
>>>> I guess the external parser could be used for other programming languages, but the case I was looking at was to provide a default escape from the command line parser to allow my application to handle the commands not understood by the parser. Now that you point it out I could use something like ‘%<line-of-script-code>’ to execute a single line of script code, which is a good idea (thanks).
>>>> One case I am looking at is when you want to execute a command and do not want to add the support into the commands.c file for every possible command. Take the case where you have a bunch of scripts (Lua) in a directory much like a bin directory. Then you could type foo.lua or foo on the command line and execute the foo.lua having the application detect you want to load and run a Lua script after it has finished parsing for the builtin commands.
>>>> For Pktgen I had to add a command called ‘run <filename> <args…>’ to support running a script with arguments. I also needed to add a argvlist type to cmdline to not error out on that command and split up the args into a argv list like format. (Maybe I need to submit that code??) It seemed more straight forward to just pass the command line to the application to run the command. I understand that seems like a minor point, but it does make it easier to use and to support the features I want to support in my PoC.
>>>> Using this method you can just type the name instead of something like ‘run foo.lua’ or just ‘run foo’ and let the code figure out what to run. I have more plans for this features as well and have not finished the basic PoC yet. If you want a peek I can show you what I am working on currently.
>>>> Does this help and do I really need to add all of this to the commit message :-)
>>> Thanks for the explanation. However, if you are looking to have the application handle a bunch of commands itself, why does it need to use the commandline library at all? Why not just have the app handle all the commands instead of some of them?
>> I guess that would be reasonable, but then I would have to add support for all of the command line parsing being done in the cmdline code. Think of this as a default case for the parser and to me that makes more sense then just doing my own command line design. In the cmdline code you guys provided is a lot of features like history, control key support, arg parsing (IP, MAC) and many others. I would rather not have to write that code myself.
>> The default case is the same behavior today, with giving a no match error unless they add the external parser.
> It seems alot simpler than that to me. Looking at the test applications, the
> command line parser expects the application to create an array of
> cmdline_parse_ctx_t structures to support new option parsing. If your goal is
> to support other languages, it seems to make more sense to just use foreign
> language bindings to merge your coding language support with the DPDK
> (ostensibly you will already have to do that if you want to use other parts of
> the DPDK).
A true language binding like Lua or one of those other languages :-) you are correct to believe binding directly using ‘C’ code is the right solution . In Pktgen I use Lua as the direct language binding and extend Lua with specific Pktgen functions.
What I am doing here is to add a default case to cmdline code, which just happens to allow me to parse the cmdline in the application. Being able to execute say a line of script code is not really the requirement IMO. Being able to extend the cmdline code with a default case is a good feature and allows the developer to extend cmdline for some simple cases. The cmdline code is kind of simple, but does require a fair amount of structures, code and understanding to write a complex extendable command line interface. It does seem hard to find a clean, simple and usable embedded command line code base is not very easy to locate.
Adding a true language binding really requires using code to extend the language as I did with Lua and Pktgen. It could have been done with any language I just picked Lua, but the patch does not really add support for a language other then giving some support for someone to handle the no_match case.
The use case for this feature is not just for Pktgen, but another solution I hope everyone will find useful when I get it more complete.
PS. on a different topic I was thinking about suggesting and writing a patch to add Lua with DPDK specific binding and extensions. (also allowing those `other` languages too :-) Being able to use a scripting language and be able to call DPDK API’s could be useful. How useful not sure at this time. (If you want to talk about this topic please start a new thread).
> Am I missing something?
>> Keith Wiles, Principal Technologist with CTO office, Wind River mobile 972-213-5533
Keith Wiles, Principal Technologist with CTO office, Wind River mobile 972-213-5533
More information about the dev