On 08/08/2017 01:48 PM, Henning Schild wrote:
Am Tue, 8 Aug 2017 12:24:54 +0200
schrieb Philippe Gerum <r...@xenomai.org>:
No, the core takes care of this. I'm unsure what your application
does to hit any conflict of that kind.

dlopen() so main will see arguments meant for xenomai_init() or you
need to no_auto_init and fiddle with /proc/cmdline and call xenomai_init

At any rate, you do not need to fiddle with /proc/cmdline manually, really.

Could you sketch the requirements of the app with respect to option parsing (namespace left aside)? Is there some main non-Xenomai executable dlopening a Xenomai-based solib defining a set of rt-specific options?

  And ultimately it has to keep a list of
valid ones to do so pedanticly. If there are name clashes behaviour
is unclear. i.e. "--help" ld.so vs. dlopen

--help can be extended. See how testsuite/latency does for an example.

Help was just one example, you could have the same problem with any of
the other parameters.

I don't see any reason to override any other core parameter, beyond --help which should remain as generic as possible but still allowing for all software layers existing in the application to contribute to it. --xeno-help would not make any sense.

It seems that you are implicitly referring to ancillaries settings such as --silent, --verbose and --quiet as being problematic. Is it correct or are you referring to other parameters?

The setup_descriptors do work but they rely on getting the order
stricly right. They have to execute before the first
xenomai_init(). In complex applications with multithreaded init
using dlopen() and auto-init-solib that quickly turns out to be

Well, I've been using setup descriptors on quite complex customer
applications (including lots of C++ static constructor braindamage),
and never went into any dead end like you seem to imply since the
latest additions in 3.0.5. Descriptors have their own priorities, and
you may now use auto-bootstrappable libs as well.

I did not. I gave my customer multiple examples on how to set
mem-pool-size in static, ld.so and dlopen(). They have braindamage
static c++ with dlopen() and could not make it work. At the moment
their main() ignores any unknown argument so they can use 1. but that
needs to be fixed.

The application may have to be fixed, I agree. Tunables provide a safer way to wire settings compared to environment variables. If settings need frequent updates, then environment variables are not practical at all.

If the issue is with calling Xenomai services from static ctors, then I can describe a way to do this. If other requirements exist along this one, please let me know.

1.1 completely drop the support for parameters and the fiddling
    with /proc/cmdline
1.2 or agree on a prefix "--xeno-" so the application can ignore all
    xenomai parameters without knowing all

> You did not comment on that at all.

Because this is asking for Xenomai not to use a few generic options names for common ancillary services, leaving it to the application, which I see no reason for. Leaving generic names to the core makes sense as much as the opposite.

2.1 completely drop the setup_descriptors in favour of environment

Hell no. Environment variables are crap. Unlike options which are
explicit, those things tend to pollute some hidden namespace, staying
there long after you stopped expecting them having any influence, set
by dusty login scripts. That one is a strict nak for me, sorry.

Ok, that is a clear opinion and i get it. Let us not discuss env
variables anymore, but let us keep talking under that thread title ;).

No issue with that.

That would be a drastic change but i think we should do something
about it. With environment variables it is clear what happens
without messing with the applications init or parameters, getting
rid of confusing complexity.

Please let me know what you think, i would be happy to prepare

What is the exact problem you face regarding options? Please also
remember that influencing the whole argument system only to support a
quite infrequent use case such as dlopen() is not the way to go. It's
ok to find a solution that might fit all usages, it is not to
introduce stuff that eases 1% of the use cases which badly affects
99% of the rest.

My customer switched to xenomai3 and they did not manage to set the
tuneables without hacks. I looked into setting them and found that
there are different ways and different behaviours for these ways
depending on how you link. They could not make it work ... Ok i can fix
it for them without talking to the community.

But i can do something about the fact that it is too complicated, and
that is what i am trying to do with this mail.

I would like to see only one way that always works the same no matter
how you link, no questions about who wins when multiple want to tune.
Maybe we can drop the "--auto-init-solib" switch eventually and just
make it default.

Frankly, that seems a legitimate goal, but with C++ and static ctors in the picture, I don't see any one-fits-it-all solution. But there is no reason not to try finding one again.

Imho 33% of the linking cases are broken, true that dlopen() is
probably not used a lot.

Not to speak of the fact that it introduces its own set of linking issues (scope mess, late binding conflicts etc). I would usually use that only for pure plugin architectures with fairly simple content interfaces; I don't see any other situation that would legitimately justify this.


Xenomai mailing list

Reply via email to