On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 06:23:17PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote: SNIP
> >>>>>> Or even clearer: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> --ctl-fifo /tmp/my-perf --ctl-fifo-ack /tmp/my-perf-ack > >>>>> > >>>>> If people are OK with having so many options, then that is fine by me. > >>>> > >>>> the single option Adrian suggested seems better to me: > >>>> > >>>> --control > >>>> --control 11 > >>>> --control 11,15 > >>> > >>> What if a user specifies fifos named like this above, not fds? > >>> > >>>> --control 11,15,disabled > >>>> --control 11,,disabled > >>>> --control /tmp/my-perf.fifo > >>>> --control /tmp/my-perf.fifo,/tmp/my-perf-ack.fifo > >>> > >>> What if a user wants not fifos but other type of comm channels? > >>> > >>>> --control /tmp/my-perf.fifo,/tmp/my-perf-ack.fifo,disabled > >>>> --control /tmp/my-perf.fifo,,disabled > >>>> > >>>> we already support this kind of options arguments, like for --call-graph > >>>> > >>>> jirka > >>>> > >>> > >>> IMHO, > >>> this interface, of course, looks more compact (in amount of options) > >>> however > >>> the other side it is less user friendly. One simple option for one simple > >>> purpose is more convenient as for users as for developers. Also complex > >>> option syntax tends to have limitations and there are probably more > >>> non-obvious ones. > >>> > >>> Please speak up. I might have missed something meaningful. > >> > >> how about specify the type like: > >> > >> --control fd:1,2,... > > > > What do these ... mean? > > After all, > if you want it this way and it now also fits my needs I could convert > --ctl-fd[-ack] to --control fd:<ctl-fd>,<ack-fd> with use cases like > --control fd:<ctl-fd> and --control fd:<ctl-fd>,<ack-fd>. Accepted? looks good jirka
