Hi Reshma,
snipped
> >
> > /* true if x is a power of 2 */
> > #define POWEROF2(x) ((((x)-1) & (x)) == 0) @@ -144,7 +145,7 @@ static
> > volatile uint8_t quit_signal; static void pdump_usage(const char
> > *prgname) {
> > - printf("usage: %s [EAL options] -- --pdump "
> > + printf("usage: %s [EAL options] -- [-l <list of cores>] --pdump "
>
> Using -l option same as eal is confusing. Please use other name.
Current implementation passes core-mask '-cx1' as EAL argument. The check for
user argument '-l <core1,core2,core3' is done before rte_eal_init. Once
identified it is replaced with c_flag.
Hence I disagree to the point it is confusing.
> Also how about moving this new option inside --pdump"" so it will be clearly
> known that the particular core will be associated to that tuple.
Yes, this can be done.
>
> Also, I have some major concern, check my below comments.
Thanks for your concerns, let me try to address them below.
>
> > "'(port=<port id> | device_id=<pci id or vdev name>),"
> > "(queue=<queue_id>),"
> > "(rx-dev=<iface or pcap file> |"
> > @@ -415,6 +416,7 @@ print_pdump_stats(void)
> > for (i = 0; i < num_tuples; i++) {
> > printf("##### PDUMP DEBUG STATS #####\n");
> > pt = &pdump_t[i];
> > + printf(" == DPDK interface (%d) ==\n", i);
>
> Here good to print the portid/deviceid and queue info, instead of printing
> pdump
> tuple index i? User might not understand that.
I am not sure, why you mention that I am displaying tuple index with I here?
> Use ### instead of === as above.
I can do this, but is there specific reasoning for "####" as it is used to
represent main header?
>
> > +
> > static inline void
> > dump_packets(void)
> > {
> > int i;
> > - struct pdump_tuples *pt;
> > + uint32_t lcore_id = 0;
> > +
> > + lcore_id = rte_get_next_lcore(lcore_id, 1, 1);
> > +
> > + if (rte_lcore_count() == 1) {
> > + while (!quit_signal) {
> > + for (i = 0; i < num_tuples; i++) {
> > + struct pdump_tuples *pt = &pdump_t[i];
> > + pdump_packets(pt);
> > + }
> > + }
> > + } else {
> > + printf(" Tuples (%u) lcores (%u)\n",
> > + num_tuples, rte_lcore_count());
> > +
> > + if ((uint32_t)num_tuples >= rte_lcore_count()) {
> > + printf("Insufficent Cores\n");
> Typo %s/Insufficent/
Ok
>
>
> > + for (i = 0; i < argc; i++) {
> > + if (strstr(argv[i], "-l")) {
> > + snprintf(c_flag, RTE_DIM(c_flag), "-l %s", argv[i+1]);
>
> You are taking this as application arguments then making it as eal argument
> to
> run the application.
I have explained the same above.
> Why not enable the needed number of cores in core mask using eal options -l
I think what you are saying is "allow user to pass -l option or -c option
before `--`". Then before invoking rte_eal_init replace it. Is this your
requirement?
and
> have new core param in pdump tuple to run that tuple on that core.
>
> Ex:
> If you check l3fwd as an example the cores should enabled using -c or -l and
> then
> they have separate --config l3fwd option in which they specify the core on
> which
> the packet processing should be run. Please check that and similar would be
> good
> here too.
I have already explained, pdump application makes static assignment of '-cx1'.
If you try passing '-c' or '-l' the error check in rte_eal_init will prevent
such assignment.
>
> > + strlcpy(argv[i], "", 2);
> > + strlcpy(argv[i + 1], "", 2);
>
> Why is this?
I have explained this above.
Anyway, rte_strlcpy should be used instead of strlcpy.
Ok
>
> Thanks,
> Reshma
Hi Reshma, thanks for feedbacks on cosmetic, spelling and using rte_strlcpy
