From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [143.182.124.21]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C3F05965 for ; Fri, 23 May 2014 11:02:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from azsmga001.ch.intel.com ([10.2.17.19]) by azsmga101.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 23 May 2014 02:02:19 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.98,892,1392192000"; d="scan'208";a="435971558" Received: from irsmsx101.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.153]) by azsmga001.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 23 May 2014 02:02:17 -0700 Received: from irsmsx154.ger.corp.intel.com (163.33.192.96) by IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com (163.33.3.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.123.3; Fri, 23 May 2014 10:02:17 +0100 Received: from irsmsx101.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.1.249]) by IRSMSX154.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.12.210]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 23 May 2014 10:02:17 +0100 From: "Burakov, Anatoly" To: Thomas Monjalon Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC] eal: change core mask input format Thread-Index: AQHPZH6eEaY/5I5GfE+/LFvBv7d9Lpsr3gpQgCIOlQCAABOikA== Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 09:02:16 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1398867282-15076-1-git-send-email-david.marchand@6wind.com> <3072912.3LAuKXU4by@xps13> In-Reply-To: <3072912.3LAuKXU4by@xps13> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.182] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC] eal: change core mask input format X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 09:02:10 -0000 Hi Thomas, > I don't understand what would be improved by adding a new parameter. > I think being able to handle the 2 syntaxes within the same option is nic= e. Well, -c option has been handling everything as hex since forever. Our own = documentation usually has coremasks without the 0x prefix. That means that = there's probably a lot of legacy code (including our own internal validatio= n code, and probably a lot of customers' code too) that depend on this beha= vior and that will fail in an unobvious way (e.g. you specified -c 3, that = gave you cores 0,1 previously, now it gives you core 3). So I personally wo= uld much prefer leaving coremask as a *coremask* (e.g. a hex mask of cores)= , and add a new parameter to have a core *list* that would be interchangeab= le with coremask. Best regards, Anatoly Burakov DPDK SW Engineer