[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 5/8] lib/librte_pdump: add new library for packet capturing support

[Aaron Conole]

"Pattan, Reshma" <reshma.pattan at intel.com> writes:

> Hi,
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Aaron Conole [mailto:aconole at redhat.com]
>> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 7:48 PM
>> To: Pattan, Reshma <reshma.pattan at intel.com>
>> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 5/8] lib/librte_pdump: add new library for
>> packet capturing support
>> 
>> Hi Reshma,
>> 
>> Reshma Pattan <reshma.pattan at intel.com> writes:
>> 
>> > Added new library for packet capturing support.
>> >
>> > Added public api rte_pdump_init, applications should call this as part
>> > of their application setup to have packet capturing framework ready.
>> >
>> > Added public api rte_pdump_uninit to uninitialize the packet capturing
>> > framework.
>> >
>> > Added public apis rte_pdump_enable and rte_pdump_disable to enable and
>> > disable packet capturing on specific port and queue.
>> >
>> > Added public apis rte_pdump_enable_by_deviceid and
>> > rte_pdump_disable_by_deviceid to enable and disable packet capturing
>> > on a specific device (pci address or name) and queue.
>> >
>> > Added public api rte_pdump_set_socket_dir to set the server socket
>> > path.
>> 
>> Thanks for this, it is quite useful!  I am wondering, should the
>> same API work for
>> a client socket as well?  The code becomes a bit easier to maintain,
>> and the API
>> behaves whether executed from client or server.
>> Thoughts?
>
> In this patch, server socket path is added as argument to
> rte_pdump_init() , so server socket path must be passed while calling
> rte_pdump_init() API.
> And rte_pdump_set_socket_dir() is added for clients , as client need
> to know server socket path for contacting server, so application
> should pass server socket path for clients using this API.
>
> Could you please clarify which of the below option you are looking to have?
> a)If you want to have client and server sockets under same non default
> path this can be done using same API. This just needs a tiny change in
> the code.
>
> b)But if you want to have aserver and client sockets under different
> paths, this can done using either of the below approaches.
> b1)use same rte_pdump_set_socket_dir() API, but add a new argument to
> specify if the path is for server or client socket.

This is probably the better option.  I think it would result in the
least surprise to an end developer, anyway.

Thanks,
Aaron

>  	(or) 
> b2)have two separate APIs to set client and server socket paths. 
>
> Which one do you prefer? 
>
> Konstantin, any comments from your side, please add. 
>
> Thanks,
> Reshma
>
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Aaron
>>