From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] doc: announce ABI change for cmdline
 buffer size
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 16:33:49 +0000
Message-ID: <20151120163349.GA4684@bricha3-MOBL3>
References: <1447087700-20921-1-git-send-email-nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com>
 <B27915DBBA3421428155699D51E4CFE2023B7307@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <564F4A3B.5080204@6wind.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
To: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D5853979
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 17:33:53 +0100 (CET)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <564F4A3B.5080204@6wind.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <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>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 05:28:43PM +0100, Olivier MATZ wrote:
> Hi N=E9lio,
>=20
> On 11/10/2015 06:29 PM, Mcnamara, John wrote:
> >=20
> >=20
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Nelio Laranjeiro [mailto:nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com]
> >> Sent: Monday, November 9, 2015 4:48 PM
> >> To: dev@dpdk.org
> >> Cc: olivier.matz@6wind.com; thomas.monjalon@6wind.com; Mcnamara, Joh=
n; Lu,
> >> Wenzhuo
> >> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] doc: announce ABI change for cmdline buffer siz=
e
> >>
> >> Current buffer size are not enough for a few testpmd commands.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Nelio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com>
> >=20
> > Acked-by: John McNamara <john.mcnamara@intel.com>
> >=20
>=20
> 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:
>=20
> 01234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890=
1234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123=
4567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456=
789012345678901234567890123456789012345
>=20
> For instance, we could change some commands to use contexts.
> Dummy example with reta config:
>=20
> 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>
>=20
> What do you think?
>=20
+1

multiple shorter commands are much less error prone than a single long on=
e.

/Bruce