On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 01:45:22PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > Hi Simon, > > 2014-11-25 10:09, Simon Kuenzer: > > thanks for your work. I have one (minor) comment for this patch that > > should be fixed in a later version. > > > > + /* default master lcore is the first one */ > > > + if (cfg->master_lcore == 0) > > > + cfg->master_lcore = rte_get_next_lcore(-1, 0, 0); > > > + > > > > Might be confusing if a user specifies --master-lcore 0 and uses a > > coremask/corelist where core id 0 is not specified. > > Yes, in this corner case, master-lcore will be adjusted instead of having > an error. > > > What about setting cfg->master_lcore to (RTE_MAX_LCORE + 1) on > > initialization in order to distinguish if a master_lcore got specified > > by the user or not? > > Even simpler, I can fix it by introducing a flag master_lcore_parsed and > do the adjustment only if the option is not parsed. > I agree that that sounds like a simpler approach, since we already have flags for what args are parsed or not.
/Bruce
