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 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.

Ping. I really want to have long options for the short option to allow me to use those same options for the config file support I would like to use for DPDK. A config file support is much more reasonable for live or production systems IMHO. Plus it could be very nice for the examples to have a config file on how that example could be configured.

I can create the config file support without the long option names for the short ones, but it would be a lot cleaner to have the same names for config file and command line.

Thanks
++Keith

>>
>>/Bruce
>>
>>
>
>
>Regards,
>Keith
>
>
>
>
>


Regards,
Keith