From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84C4844088; Tue, 21 May 2024 17:01:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A126402C8; Tue, 21 May 2024 17:01:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 466B04025C for ; Tue, 21 May 2024 17:01:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4450DA7; Tue, 21 May 2024 08:01:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.1.28.17] (FVFG51LCQ05N.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.28.17]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C05B93F641; Tue, 21 May 2024 08:00:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <31b10367-54a7-4ab7-b3ba-772404307e38@arm.com> Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 16:00:37 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] dts: add `show port stats` command to TestPmdShell Content-Language: en-GB To: Nicholas Pratte Cc: dev@dpdk.org, =?UTF-8?Q?Juraj_Linke=C5=A1?= , Jeremy Spewock , Paul Szczepanek References: <20240412111136.3470304-1-luca.vizzarro@arm.com> <20240509112635.1170557-1-luca.vizzarro@arm.com> <20240509112635.1170557-6-luca.vizzarro@arm.com> From: Luca Vizzarro In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org On 20/05/2024 15:26, Nicholas Pratte wrote: > I've been running some local tests using a mock test suite. Each > method you created generates output as expected, but > show_port_stats_all() is printing out an empty list; I'm not sure this > is intentional or not. I don't have much experience with regular > expressions to be able to discern what is going on in the code within > a reasonable amount of time, so I wanted to bring this to your > attention. Yeah, well spotted! I must have missed it in my testing... it looks like it's the fault of the sneaky \r being added at the end of the lines by the paramiko shell.