[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] doc: announce ABI change for cmdline buffer size

[Bruce Richardson]

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 at 6wind.com]
> >> Sent: Monday, November 9, 2015 4:48 PM
> >> To: dev at dpdk.org
> >> Cc: olivier.matz at 6wind.com; thomas.monjalon at 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 <nelio.laranjeiro at 6wind.com>
> > 
> > Acked-by: John McNamara <john.mcnamara at intel.com>
> > 
> 
> 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