From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Received: from mail.droids-corp.org (zoll.droids-corp.org [94.23.50.67])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 874E47D52
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri,  8 Dec 2017 14:51:25 +0100 (CET)
Received: from lfbn-1-6068-189.w90-110.abo.wanadoo.fr ([90.110.3.189]
 helo=droids-corp.org)
 by mail.droids-corp.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256)
 (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <olivier.matz@6wind.com>)
 id 1eNJ9m-00069Z-Fj; Fri, 08 Dec 2017 14:57:40 +0100
Received: by droids-corp.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation);
 Fri, 08 Dec 2017 14:51:15 +0100
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 14:51:15 +0100
From: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
To: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>
Cc: Xueming Li <xuemingl@mellanox.com>, Wenzhuo Lu <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>,
 dev@dpdk.org
Message-ID: <20171208135114.wzkoidddxudbzyuy@platinum>
References: <20171115155402.9967-1-xuemingl@mellanox.com>
 <20171208070244.24094-1-xuemingl@mellanox.com>
 <20171208122726.GT4062@6wind.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20171208122726.GT4062@6wind.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] lib/cmdline: init parse result memory
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2017 13:51:25 -0000

On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 01:27:26PM +0100, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 03:02:44PM +0800, Xueming Li wrote:
> > Initialize binary result memory before parsing to avoid garbage in
> > parsing result.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Xueming Li <xuemingl@mellanox.com>
> 
> Since you chose to move the break statement, maybe the original commit
> mentioned in my previous message (9b3fbb051d2e "cmdline: fix parsing") can
> be reverted afterward? I think it makes tmp_result redundant.
> 
> Wenzhuo, as the author of that commit, can you confirm?
> 
> Olivier, no problem with breaking the loop immediately after the first
> successful match_inst() call instead of the last one? (I don't see why it
> would be an issue but I may have missed something)

Moving the break will change the behavior, it will never detect
ambiguous commands (i.e when several commands match the same input).
So I think we should not do it.

IMO, only the memset() is enough.

Regards,
Olivier