Re: [PATCH v2] app/testpmd: support updating flow rule actions

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

12/02/2024 09:37, Oleksandr Kolomeiets:
> From: Dariusz Sosnowski <dsosnowski@nvidia.com>
> > From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > > 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 ...".
> 
> 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.

If a function is added for pattern update, we could still implement it
with the same command prefix "flow update" and call functions as appropriate.
So yes I still think the command should be "flow update".