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

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

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.