On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:12:33AM -0600, Roger Keith Wiles wrote: > Burn, it is not like we are going to add a huge number of new options in the > future and run out of letters. > No, but what about the application authors that need to accomodate all of the dpdk command line options as well? Neil
> > On Nov 24, 2014, at 8:52 AM, Venkatesan, Venky <venky.venkatesan at > > intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 11/24/2014 5:28 AM, Bruce Richardson wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 02:19:16PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >>> Hi Bruce and Neil, > >>> > >>> 2014-11-24 11:28, Bruce Richardson: > >>>> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 08:35:17PM -0500, Neil Horman wrote: > >>>>> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 10:43:39PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >>>>>> From: Didier Pallard <didier.pallard at 6wind.com> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In current version, used cores can only be specified using a bitmask. > >>>>>> It will now be possible to specify cores in 2 different ways: > >>>>>> - Using a bitmask (-c [0x]nnn): bitmask must be in hex format > >>>>>> - Using a list in following format: -l <c1>[-c2][,c3[-c4],...] > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The letter -l can stand for lcore or list. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -l 0-7,16-23,31 being equivalent to -c 0x80FF00FF > >>>>> Do you want to burn an option letter on that? It seems like it might > >>>>> be better > >>>>> to search the string for 0x and base the selection of bitmap of list > >>>>> parsing > >>>>> based on its presence or absence. > >>> It was the initial proposal (in April): > >>> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-April/002173.html > >>> And I liked keeping only 1 option; > >>> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-May/002722.html > >>> But Anatoly raised the compatibility problem: > >>> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-May/002723.html > >>> Then there was no other comment so Didier and I reworked a separate > >>> option. > >>> > >>>> The existing coremask parsing always assumes a hex coremask, so just > >>>> looking > >>>> for a 0x will not work. I prefer this scheme of using a new flag for > >>>> this method > >>>> of specifying the cores to use. > >>>> > >>>> If you don't want to use up a single-letter option, two alternatives: > >>>> 1) use a long option instead. > >>>> 2) if the -c parameter includes a "-" or a ",", treat it as a new-style > >>>> option, > >>>> otherwise treat as old. The only abiguity here would be for specifying a > >>>> single > >>>> core value 1-9 e.g. is "-c 6" a mask with two bits, or a single-core to > >>>> run on. > >>>> [0 is obviously a named core as it's an invalid mask, and A-F are > >>>> obviously > >>>> masks.] If we did want this scheme, I would suggest that we allow > >>>> trailing > >>>> commas in the list specifier, so we can force users to clear ambiguity by > >>>> either writing "0x6" or "6," i.e. disallow ambiguous values to avoid > >>>> problems. > >>>> However, this is probably more work that it's worth to avoid using up a > >>>> letter > >>>> option. > >>>> > >>>> I'd prefer any of these options to breaking backward compatibility in > >>>> this case. > >>> We need a consensus here. > >>> Who is supporting a "burn" of an one-letter option with clear usage? > >>> Who is supporting a "re-merge" of the 2 syntaxes with more complicated > >>> rules > >>> (list syntax is triggered by presence of "-" or ",")? > >>> > >> Burn! > > Burn ^ 2 ;) > >
