Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: add missing long-options for short option arguments

["Wiles, Keith" <keith.wiles@intel.com>]

>On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Wiles, Keith <keith.wiles@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@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