From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CFFFA0C4C; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 14:00:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABFB140683; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 14:00:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga18.intel.com (mga18.intel.com [134.134.136.126]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5E9C4003C for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 14:00:47 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,10113"; a="210418529" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.85,311,1624345200"; d="scan'208";a="210418529" Received: from fmsmga007.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.52]) by orsmga106.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Sep 2021 05:00:46 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.85,311,1624345200"; d="scan'208";a="474043914" Received: from bricha3-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.252.5.200]) by fmsmga007-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 21 Sep 2021 05:00:45 -0700 Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2021 13:00:42 +0100 From: Bruce Richardson To: David Hunt Cc: dev@dpdk.org, thomas@monjalon.net, david.marchand@redhat.com Message-ID: References: <20210915121104.30581-1-david.hunt@intel.com> <20210921115015.36442-1-david.hunt@intel.com> <20210921115015.36442-2-david.hunt@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210921115015.36442-2-david.hunt@intel.com> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/2] eal: add additional info if core mask too long X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 12:50:15PM +0100, David Hunt wrote: > If the user requests to use an lcore above 128 using -c, > the eal will exit with "EAL: invalid core list syntax" and > very little else useful information. > > This patch adds some extra information suggesting to use --lcores > so that physical cores above RTE_MAX_LCORE (default 128) can be > used. This is achieved by using the --lcores option by mapping > the logical cores in the application to physical cores. > > There is no change in functionalty, just additional messages > suggesting how the --lcores option might be used for the supplied > list of lcores. For example, if > "-c 0xf00000000000000000000000000000000" is used, we see the > following additional output on the command line: > > EAL: Error = One of the 4 cores provided exceeds RTE_MAX_LCORE (128) "=" ? > EAL: Please use --lcores instead, e.g. --lcores 0@128,1@129,2@130,3@131 > > Signed-off-by: David Hunt > While I really can't see many people using "-c" to use cores >128 (unless from a script, I suppose), this change is worthwhile having for completeness. I suggest aligning the error message with that for "-l" flag. Acked-by: Bruce Richardson