>>On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 01:09:16PM -0600, Keith Wiles wrote: >>> A number of short options for EAL are missing long options >>> and this patch adds those missing options. >>> >>> The missing long options are for: >>> -c add --coremask >>> -d add --driver >>> -l add --corelist >>> -m add --memsize >>> -n add --mem-channels >>> -r add --mem-ranks >>> -v add --version >>> Add an alias for --lcores using --lcore-map >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Keith Wiles <keith.wiles at intel.com> >> >>Why do we need long options for all the short options? > >I think we need the long options to match the short options just because it >makes sense to me to have long options for all short options. Take the case of >-v, just about everyone else has a ?version long-option, but we do not. > >The real reason is to allow for DPDK configuration via a configuration file >and I wanted to use the same strings for the config file variables as the >command line options. I figured I would add the long options now as they do >not effect the configuration file patch.
Ping. I really want to have long options for the short option to allow me to use those same options for the config file support I would like to use for DPDK. A config file support is much more reasonable for live or production systems IMHO. Plus it could be very nice for the examples to have a config file on how that example could be configured. I can create the config file support without the long option names for the short ones, but it would be a lot cleaner to have the same names for config file and command line. Thanks ++Keith >> >>/Bruce >> >> > > >Regards, >Keith > > > > > Regards, Keith
