| Message ID | 1582210386-27331-1-git-send-email-wisamm@mellanox.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Delegated to: | Thomas Monjalon |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v3] cmdline: increase maximum line length | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| ci/travis-robot | warning | Travis build: failed |
| ci/Intel-compilation | success | Compilation OK |
| ci/iol-mellanox-Performance | success | Performance Testing PASS |
| ci/iol-testing | success | Testing PASS |
| ci/checkpatch | success | coding style OK |
This patch is flagged as an ABI breakage: https://travis-ci.com/ovsrobot/dpdk/jobs/289313318#L2273 On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 3:53 PM Wisam Jaddo <wisamm@mellanox.com> wrote: > > This increase due to the usage of cmdline in dpdk applications > as config commands such as testpmd do for rte_flow rules creation. > > The current size of buffer is not enough to fill > many cases of rte_flow commands validation/creation. > > rte_flow now can have outer items, inner items, modify > actions, meta data actions, duplicate action, fate action and > more in one single rte flow, thus 512 char will not be enough > to validate such rte flow rules. > > Such change shouldn't affect the memory since the cmdline > reading again using the same buffer. I don't get your point here. > Cc: stable@dpdk.org This is not a fix.
Hi, Ressurecting this old thread. On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 04:28:15PM +0100, David Marchand wrote: > This patch is flagged as an ABI breakage: > https://travis-ci.com/ovsrobot/dpdk/jobs/289313318#L2273 > In case we want this fix for 20.11, should we do a deprecation notice in 20.08? Olivier > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 3:53 PM Wisam Jaddo <wisamm@mellanox.com> wrote: > > > > This increase due to the usage of cmdline in dpdk applications > > as config commands such as testpmd do for rte_flow rules creation. > > > > The current size of buffer is not enough to fill > > many cases of rte_flow commands validation/creation. > > > > rte_flow now can have outer items, inner items, modify > > actions, meta data actions, duplicate action, fate action and > > more in one single rte flow, thus 512 char will not be enough > > to validate such rte flow rules. > > > > Such change shouldn't affect the memory since the cmdline > > reading again using the same buffer. > > I don't get your point here. > > > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org > > This is not a fix. > > > -- > David Marchand >
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 2:55 PM Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com> wrote: > Ressurecting this old thread. > > On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 04:28:15PM +0100, David Marchand wrote: > > This patch is flagged as an ABI breakage: > > https://travis-ci.com/ovsrobot/dpdk/jobs/289313318#L2273 > > > > In case we want this fix for 20.11, should we do a deprecation notice > in 20.08? If there is something to change, that would be removing this max size rather than extend it. Let's not go the "XX bytes ought to be enough for anybody" way.
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 14:55:16 +0200 Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Ressurecting this old thread. > > On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 04:28:15PM +0100, David Marchand wrote: > > This patch is flagged as an ABI breakage: > > https://travis-ci.com/ovsrobot/dpdk/jobs/289313318#L2273 > > > > In case we want this fix for 20.11, should we do a deprecation notice > in 20.08? > > > Olivier > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 3:53 PM Wisam Jaddo <wisamm@mellanox.com> wrote: > > > > > > This increase due to the usage of cmdline in dpdk applications > > > as config commands such as testpmd do for rte_flow rules creation. > > > > > > The current size of buffer is not enough to fill > > > many cases of rte_flow commands validation/creation. > > > > > > rte_flow now can have outer items, inner items, modify > > > actions, meta data actions, duplicate action, fate action and > > > more in one single rte flow, thus 512 char will not be enough > > > to validate such rte flow rules. > > > > > > Such change shouldn't affect the memory since the cmdline > > > reading again using the same buffer. > > > > I don't get your point here. The cmdline is a awkward user API. Thomas wanted to replace it but it seems to have gotten nowhere. Agree that having something dynamic would be best, Something based of getline() or editline (readline).
diff --git a/lib/librte_cmdline/cmdline_rdline.h b/lib/librte_cmdline/cmdline_rdline.h index d217029..8193e1d 100644 --- a/lib/librte_cmdline/cmdline_rdline.h +++ b/lib/librte_cmdline/cmdline_rdline.h @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ extern "C" { #endif /* configuration */ -#define RDLINE_BUF_SIZE 512 +#define RDLINE_BUF_SIZE 2048 #define RDLINE_PROMPT_SIZE 32 #define RDLINE_VT100_BUF_SIZE 8 #define RDLINE_HISTORY_BUF_SIZE BUFSIZ
This increase due to the usage of cmdline in dpdk applications as config commands such as testpmd do for rte_flow rules creation. The current size of buffer is not enough to fill many cases of rte_flow commands validation/creation. rte_flow now can have outer items, inner items, modify actions, meta data actions, duplicate action, fate action and more in one single rte flow, thus 512 char will not be enough to validate such rte flow rules. Such change shouldn't affect the memory since the cmdline reading again using the same buffer. Cc: stable@dpdk.org Signed-off-by: Wisam Jaddo <wisamm@mellanox.com> --- changes in v3 * Fix commit title Previous title was not that clear of what the change is * Add more clarification for what we need such increase * Explain why it won't cause any memory issue --- --- lib/librte_cmdline/cmdline_rdline.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)