>On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Wiles, Keith <keith.wiles at intel.com> >wrote: >>>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. > >No strong opinion on this. > >Just, why "memsize" with no - but "mem-channels" ? >And why cut down to mem rather than memory ?
I debated on mem-size, but I noticed in a couple places some used memsize. I can change them to any thing someone wants. If you want memory-channels and memory-ranks I am good with that too. > > >-- >David Marchand > Regards, Keith
