> > > On 19 Mar 2015, at 18:34, Gray, Mark D <mark.d.g...@intel.com> wrote: > > > >> From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@openvswitch.org] On Behalf Of Gray, > >> Mark D > >> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 6:19 PM > >> To: Traynor, Kevin; Daniele Di Proietto > >> Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH 0/6] DPDK: simplify configuration > >> > >> [snip] > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi, I've reviewed this patchset - few comments/questions on it… > >>>> > >>>> Hi Kevin, thanks > >>>> > >>>>> I haven't tested yet - but I'm wondering what is the impact to the > >>>>> dpdk -c parameter. Is it no longer used for OVS? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Yes, that’s correct. It should have no impact on OVS. I think we > >>>> should also provide a default, i.e. generate the parameters passed > >>>> to dpdk_eal_init at some point. > >> > >> +1 to removing the -c parameter as it seems to be the same as > >> 'other_config:n-pmd-cores' and is a little confusing as to how they > interact. > >> Maybe 'other_config:n-pmd-cores' could be a mandatory option? > > > > I used the wrong config option in above. Let me rephrase it. > > +1 to removing the -c parameter as it seems to be the same as > > 'other_config:pmd-cpu-mask + other_config:nonpmd-cpu-mask' and is a > little confusing as to how they interact. > > Maybe 'other_config:pmd-cpu-mask + other_config:nonpmd-cpu-mask' > could be a mandatory option? > > The idea behind this change is to let advanced users configure their masks, > and provide a simple configuration parameter (n-pmd-cores) for users who > do not want or need to deal with cpu masks. What do you think?
Is the -c option needed in either of these cases? In both cases, it could be derived and would simplify the command line. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
