On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 05:28:43PM +0100, Olivier MATZ wrote: > Hi N?lio, > > 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
