On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 12:32:04AM +0000, Keller, Jacob E wrote:
> I think in this case introducing a "long" option would make more
> sense than using more small options. I do agree that we shouldn't
> proliferate command line options for every single thing in the
> config, (as many of these are esoteric and we would have to add more
> and more options as time goes on). However, I think that using long
> options can provide clarity that a small 1letter option name
> doesn't.
> > I think we should consider the long options for v2 if people really
> > want them...
So it sounds like people do want long options. I'll see if I can come
up with a way to automatically support the config_tab[] entries in
config.c as command line options. For example
PORT_ITEM_INT("announceReceiptTimeout", 3, 2, UINT8_MAX),
GLOB_ITEM_INT("assume_two_step", 0, 0, 1),
PORT_ITEM_INT("boundary_clock_jbod", 0, 0, 1),
becomes
--announceReceiptTimeout val
--assume_two_step
--boundary_clock_jbod
It should be possible, I would think.
Thanks,
Richard
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Developer Access Program for Intel Xeon Phi Processors
Access to Intel Xeon Phi processor-based developer platforms.
With one year of Intel Parallel Studio XE.
Training and support from Colfax.
Order your platform today. http://sdm.link/xeonphi
_______________________________________________
Linuxptp-devel mailing list
Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
