Thank you for the review.
Indeed, shortening the command from "flow actions_update" to "flow update" seems more natural.
However, note that the command updates only the actions of a flow rule and leaves all other parameters unchanged.
My concern is that in the future there can be some "flow pattern_update" command, thus making "flow update" command ambiguous.
Also, the name is consistent with the underlying rte_flow_actions_update() function.
With that in mind, please clarify if the name should still be changed.
From: Dariusz Sosnowski <dsosnowski@nvidia.com>
Sent: Monday, February 5, 2024 9:18 PM
To: NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon (EXTERNAL) <thomas@monjalon.net>; Mykola Kostenok <mko-plv@napatech.com>; Christian Koue Muf <ckm@napatech.com>; Oleksandr Kolomeiets <okl-plv@napatech.com>
Cc: aman.deep.singh@intel.com <aman.deep.singh@intel.com>; yuying.zhang@intel.com <yuying.zhang@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org <dev@dpdk.org>; Ori Kam <orika@nvidia.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] app/testpmd: support updating flow rule actions
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> Sent: Friday, February 2, 2024 10:55
> To: mko-plv@napatech.com; ckm@napatech.com; Oleksandr Kolomeiets
> <okl-plv@napatech.com>
> Cc: aman.deep.singh@intel.com; yuying.zhang@intel.com; dev@dpdk.org;
> Ori Kam <orika@nvidia.com>; Dariusz Sosnowski <dsosnowski@nvidia.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] app/testpmd: support updating flow rule actions
>
> 01/02/2024 10:59, Oleksandr Kolomeiets:
> > "flow actions_update" updates a flow rule specified by a rule ID with
> > a new action list by making a call to "rte_flow_actions_update()":
> >
> > flow actions_update {port_id} {rule_id}
> > actions {action} [/ {action} [...]] / end [user_id]
> >
> > Creating, updating and destroying a flow rule:
> >
> > testpmd> flow create 0 group 1 pattern eth / end actions drop / end
> > Flow rule #0 created
> > testpmd> flow actions_update 0 0 actions queue index 1 / end
> > Flow rule #0 updated with new actions
> > testpmd> flow destroy 0 rule 0
> > Flow rule #0 destroyed
>
> Why not a simple "flow update" command name?
+1. This would also make it consistent with async version of this command - "flow queue {port_id} update ...".