[dpdk-dev] Non-argv dependant rte_eal_init() call
Antti Kantee
pooka at iki.fi
Thu Aug 1 18:47:35 CEST 2013
On 1.8.2013 19:13, Marc Sune wrote:
> Regarding the rte_eal_init(), if the concern is the number of parameters
> and backwards compatibility, a typical solution is to create a struct
> containing the parameters:
>
> <code>
> typedef struct eal_init_params{
> uint64_t coremask;
> unsigned int num_of_cache_lines;
> /* Add here more parmeters in future versions... */
> }eal_init_params_t;
>
> int rte_eal_init(eal_init_params_t* params);
> </code>
>
> Therefore the user code, is always backwards compatible (provided that
> is properly recompiled).
I don't think that's a good interface because:
1) like you say, you need to recompile everything always to make sure
the passed struct is of the right size
2) it's less obvious how to pass optional parameters, or more
accurately, how to not pass them. You could add some
eal_init_defaults() interface, but see "3".
3) with every DPDK upgrade you need to evaluate new members of the
struct to determine their default values. Mandatory parameters need to
be addressed either way, but at least the current scheme gives an
explicit error if you omit one instead of defaulting to some perhaps
unwanted behavior.
I think the current way of passing of a string tuple vector is fine,
though I agree it's a little counter-intuitive when you need to invent
argv[0] in case you're not just passing in argv[] opaquely. I pass
"if_dpdk" from my TCP driver, and I haven't lost too much sleep over it.
My only annoyance is that eal_init() takes a non-const.
- antti
More information about the dev
mailing list