From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Burakov, Anatoly" Subject: Re: [RFC 0/9] Modularize and enhance DPDK Python scripts Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 09:16:59 +0100 Message-ID: <9c694099-07f7-d805-9b23-1c06b0eef128@intel.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: john.mcnamara@intel.com, bruce.richardson@intel.com, pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com, david.hunt@intel.com, mohammad.abdul.awal@intel.com To: dev@dpdk.org Return-path: Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF82EDED for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2018 10:17:02 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 14-Aug-18 11:11 AM, Burakov, Anatoly wrote: > On 25-Jun-18 4:59 PM, Anatoly Burakov wrote: >> This patchset attempts to create a library out of Python scripts that >> come with DPDK, with a goal of enabling external tools to get the same >> information about the system DPDK has, and perhaps configure DPDK. >> >> Potential applications include: >> >> * Better setup.sh script (it's long overdue, and you know it!) >> * Easier development of better tools for developers (see hugepage-info >>    example) >> * Easier gathering of DPDK-centric system information, has potential >>    applications in troubleshooting tools >> * Reduce code duplication for external tools seeking to use the same >>    functionality (bind-unbind, cpu layout, etc) >> * Add cross-platform support for our scripts (see cpu-layout example >>    now working on FreeBSD) >> >> There are a few things to mention. First of all, it's an RFC, so the >> fact that it's unfinished and maybe awkward comes with the territory. >> I am also aware of the fact that it's a Python library, that it's >> outside the scope of DPDK and that it's somewhat a Not-Invented-Here >> kind of proposition where there are a lot of externally available >> (and arguably much better designed and implemented) tools that do the >> same thing. >> >> So the first question i would like to ask is, is the community at all >> interested in something like this? Does it have to be part of DPDK >> repository? Can it be maintained in a separate repository? How do we >> handle updates and dependencies? >> >> I should also mention that it is *not* intended to be a replacement >> for udev or any other method of device binding - if anything, it's >> the opposite, in that it takes the whole issue out of the question >> and thus would make switching to udev or any other device binding >> easier since both internal and external tools can utilize the same >> Python API. >> > > I would like to draw attention to this RFC again :) > Ping? -- Thanks, Anatoly