14/10/2025 11:48, Bruce Richardson: > On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 11:43:28AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 14/10/2025 10:45, Morten Brørup: > > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:[email protected]] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 14 October 2025 08.59 > > > > > > > > Dump the mbuf history to the console or to a file. > > > > > > > > The dump will contain: > > > > - Operation history for each mbuf > > > > - Summary and statistics about all mbufs > > > > > > > > Dump the history of all mbufs: > > > > testpmd> dump mbuf history all [file] > > > > > > > > Dump the history of one mbuf pool: > > > > testpmd> dump mbuf history mempool <mp_name> [file] > > > > > > > > Dump the history of one mbuf: > > > > testpmd> dump mbuf history one <mbuf_addr> [file] > > > > > > The "one" seems superfluous. I think this would suffice: > > > testpmd> dump mbuf history <mbuf_addr> [file] > > > > It's not superfluous :) > > Without it, the cmdline library cannot distinguish easily > > between > > dump mbuf history <mbuf_addr> [file] > > and > > dump mbuf history mempool <mp_name> > > > The latter might read better as "dump mbuf pool history <mp_name>", which > would also resolve the ambiguity.
I'll try that. > Even without cmdline lib resolving the ambiguity, it should be easy enough > for the cmdline callback to do strcmp() on the 4th parameter to check if > it's the string "mempool" and then direct appropriately. It is already doing strcmp(), but first, cmdline parsing must not be ambiguous.
