From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D5853979 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 17:33:53 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 20 Nov 2015 08:33:53 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,323,1444719600"; d="scan'208";a="690619380" Received: from bricha3-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.237.208.60]) by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2015 08:33:50 -0800 Received: by (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 20 Nov 2015 16:33:49 +0025 Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 16:33:49 +0000 From: Bruce Richardson To: Olivier MATZ Message-ID: <20151120163349.GA4684@bricha3-MOBL3> References: <1447087700-20921-1-git-send-email-nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com> <564F4A3B.5080204@6wind.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <564F4A3B.5080204@6wind.com> Organization: Intel Shannon Ltd. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] doc: announce ABI change for cmdline buffer size X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 16:33:54 -0000 On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 05:28:43PM +0100, Olivier MATZ wrote: > Hi Nélio, > > On 11/10/2015 06:29 PM, Mcnamara, John wrote: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Nelio Laranjeiro [mailto:nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com] > >> Sent: Monday, November 9, 2015 4:48 PM > >> To: dev@dpdk.org > >> Cc: olivier.matz@6wind.com; thomas.monjalon@6wind.com; Mcnamara, John; Lu, > >> Wenzhuo > >> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] doc: announce ABI change for cmdline buffer size > >> > >> Current buffer size are not enough for a few testpmd commands. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Nelio Laranjeiro > > > > Acked-by: John McNamara > > > > While I'm not fundamentally opposed to change the buffer size, > I'm wondering if the impacted commands shouldn't be reworked to > have smaller lines. 256 is already a quite big value for a line: > > 0123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345 > > For instance, we could change some commands to use contexts. > Dummy example with reta config: > > testpmd> port config 0 rss reta > testpmd-reta-config-0> add hash1 queue1 > testpmd-reta-config-0> add hash2 queue2 > testpmd-reta-config-0> del hash1 queue1 > testpmd-reta-config-0> show > testpmd-reta-config-0> commit > testpmd> > > What do you think? > +1 multiple shorter commands are much less error prone than a single long one. /Bruce