Thank you for the review. 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. ________________________________ From: Dariusz Sosnowski <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, February 5, 2024 9:18 PM To: NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon (EXTERNAL) <[email protected]>; Mykola Kostenok <[email protected]>; Christian Koue Muf <[email protected]>; Oleksandr Kolomeiets <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Ori Kam <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] app/testpmd: support updating flow rule actions
> -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, February 2, 2024 10:55 > To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Oleksandr Kolomeiets > <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > Ori Kam <[email protected]>; Dariusz Sosnowski <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] app/testpmd: support updating flow rule actions > > 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 ...".
