Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/4] Clean up EAL runtime data paths

["Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>]

On 09-May-18 8:03 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 09/05/2018 18:11, Bruce Richardson:
>> On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 04:59:39PM +0100, Van Haaren, Harry wrote:
>>>> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Anatoly Burakov
>>>> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 1:09 PM
>>>> To: dev@dpdk.org
>>>> Cc: Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com>; thomas@monjalon.net
>>>> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/4] Clean up EAL runtime data paths
>>>>
>>>> As has been suggested [1], all DPDK runtime paths should be put
>>>> into a single place. This patchset accomplishes exactly that.
>>>>
>>>> If running as root, all files will be put under /var/run/dpdk/<prefix>,
>>>> otherwise they will be put under $XDG_RUNTIME_PATH/dpdk/<prefix>, or, if
>>>> that environment variable is not defined, all files will go under
>>>> /tmp/dpdk/<prefix>.
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/38688/
>>>>
>>>> v2:
>>>> - Rebase on rc1
>>>>
>>>> Anatoly Burakov (4):
>>>>    eal: remove unused define
>>>>    eal: rename function returning hugepage data path
>>>>    eal: add directory for DPDK runtime data
>>>>    eal: move all runtime data into DPDK runtime dir
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>
>>> No full code review, high level comments:
>>>
>>> We have to be careful in changing /var/run/.rte_config, which has always been
>>> the default DPDK primary application lockfile. This has been used to identify
>>> if a primary DPDK application is alive (see rte_eal_primary_proc_alive()) and
>>> possibly the write-lock on this file is checked by other tools/utilities directly
>>> without any DPDK function call.
>>>
>>> Changing the filepath just before a release isn't a good idea - we should treat
>>> this as an ABI/API break, as the change will break functionality in other projects
>>> such as CollectD[1], which (by default ;) rely on the defaults. There is a config
>>> file for CollectD to manually override the location, but this will cause headaches
>>> from a usability POV.
>>>
>>> I'm not opposed to the change - particularly as I gather the new memory subsystem
>>> causes a number of lockfiles to be created - but we must do our due diligence and
>>> give other projects fair-warning that this change is coming.
>>>
>>> As such, I recommend this patchset in its current form (particularly patches 2,3,4)
>>> to be deferred past 18.05.
>>>
>>>
>> What about if we keep the .rte_config file in the same place but move the
>> rest? The number of new files causes quite a bit of clutter. We can then
>> have a deprecation notice for the move in 18.05 and finish the cleanup in
>> 18.08.
> 
> I agree
> 

Thanks for catching this, Harry. I'll resubmit the patches then, along 
with a deprecation notice about /var/run/.<prefix>_config.

-- 
Thanks,
Anatoly