From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roger Keith Wiles Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/10] eal: add core list input format Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 11:09:57 -0600 Message-ID: <77CBDAFE-F897-480B-828C-20295778DA92@icloud.com> References: <1416692622-28886-1-git-send-email-thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> <20141123013517.GA3982@localhost.localdomain> <20141124112819.GA11552@bricha3-MOBL3> <4662010.O9okd8Allt@xps13> <20141124132821.GA11116@bricha3-MOBL3> <54734618.1020905@intel.com> <7E169FC8-CED0-4DD1-B2DA-CAAAFFBD7231@icloud.com> <20141124170445.GA7532@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org To: Neil Horman Return-path: In-reply-to: <20141124170445.GA7532-B26myB8xz7F8NnZeBjwnZQMhkBWG/bsMQH7oEaQurus@public.gmane.org> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" > On Nov 24, 2014, at 11:04 AM, Neil Horman = wrote: >=20 > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:12:33AM -0600, Roger Keith Wiles wrote: >> Burn, it is not like we are going to add a huge number of new options = in the future and run out of letters. >>=20 > No, but what about the application authors that need to accomodate all = of the > dpdk command line options as well? The application authors are not effected. The application authors can = use any options after the =E2=80=98--=E2=80=98 as DPDK does not define = these options correct except in the example applications. > Neil >=20 >>> On Nov 24, 2014, at 8:52 AM, Venkatesan, Venky = wrote: >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> On 11/24/2014 5:28 AM, Bruce Richardson wrote: >>>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 02:19:16PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >>>>> Hi Bruce and Neil, >>>>>=20 >>>>> 2014-11-24 11:28, Bruce Richardson: >>>>>> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 08:35:17PM -0500, Neil Horman wrote: >>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 10:43:39PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >>>>>>>> From: Didier Pallard >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> In current version, used cores can only be specified using a = bitmask. >>>>>>>> It will now be possible to specify cores in 2 different ways: >>>>>>>> - Using a bitmask (-c [0x]nnn): bitmask must be in hex format >>>>>>>> - Using a list in following format: -l [-c2][,c3[-c4],...] >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> The letter -l can stand for lcore or list. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> -l 0-7,16-23,31 being equivalent to -c 0x80FF00FF >>>>>>> Do you want to burn an option letter on that? It seems like it = might be better >>>>>>> to search the string for 0x and base the selection of bitmap of = list parsing >>>>>>> based on its presence or absence. >>>>> It was the initial proposal (in April): >>>>> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-April/002173.html >>>>> And I liked keeping only 1 option; >>>>> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-May/002722.html >>>>> But Anatoly raised the compatibility problem: >>>>> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-May/002723.html >>>>> Then there was no other comment so Didier and I reworked a = separate option. >>>>>=20 >>>>>> The existing coremask parsing always assumes a hex coremask, so = just looking >>>>>> for a 0x will not work. I prefer this scheme of using a new flag = for this method >>>>>> of specifying the cores to use. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> If you don't want to use up a single-letter option, two = alternatives: >>>>>> 1) use a long option instead. >>>>>> 2) if the -c parameter includes a "-" or a ",", treat it as a = new-style option, >>>>>> otherwise treat as old. The only abiguity here would be for = specifying a single >>>>>> core value 1-9 e.g. is "-c 6" a mask with two bits, or a = single-core to run on. >>>>>> [0 is obviously a named core as it's an invalid mask, and A-F are = obviously >>>>>> masks.] If we did want this scheme, I would suggest that we allow = trailing >>>>>> commas in the list specifier, so we can force users to clear = ambiguity by >>>>>> either writing "0x6" or "6," i.e. disallow ambiguous values to = avoid problems. >>>>>> However, this is probably more work that it's worth to avoid = using up a letter >>>>>> option. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> I'd prefer any of these options to breaking backward = compatibility in this case. >>>>> We need a consensus here. >>>>> Who is supporting a "burn" of an one-letter option with clear = usage? >>>>> Who is supporting a "re-merge" of the 2 syntaxes with more = complicated rules >>>>> (list syntax is triggered by presence of "-" or ",")? >>>>>=20 >>>> Burn! >>> Burn ^ 2 ;) >>=20 >>=20