On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 03:55:19PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > There are some pending patches which requires to factorize some EAL parts > > in order to be correctly implemented. > > This patchset do the required clean-up and rework these patches to improve > > lcore handling: > > > > Didier Pallard (2): > > eal: add core list input format > > config: support 128 cores > > > > Patrick Lu (1): > > eal: get relative core index > > > > Simon Kuenzer (1): > > eal: add option --master-lcore > > > > Thomas Monjalon (6): > > eal: move internal headers in source directory > > eal: factorize common headers > > eal: fix header guards > > eal: factorize internal config reset > > eal: factorize options sanity check > > eal: factorize configuration adjustment > > Applied with last comments integrated. > > The conclusions to the vote about the -c/-l options are: > - people don't vote (don't care or don't read) > - a few votes give the majority to creating the -l option. > > Neil, I'm really not sure what is the best solution. Maybe that applying > this patch will make more voices raising. We'll see, all can be changed. > > -- My additional 2c here: While I don't see much wrong with having core lists passed using a long option, more and more cores are being added to the latest CPUs, so it's likely that DPDK users are going to have systems with >64 cores and will want to move from the coremask specifier to the core list option. In that case, having it as a short option makes a lot of sense.
/Bruce
