On Thu, 5 Sep 2024 18:17:42 +0200 Paolo Abeni wrote: > > I don't see example uses in the cover letter or the test so there's > > a good chance I'm missing something, but... why node_parent? > > The only thing you need to know about the parent is its handle, > > so just "parent", right? > > > > Also why node_handle? Just "handle", and other attrs of the node can > > live in the main scope. > > I added the 'node_' prefix in the list to stress that such attributes > belong to the node. > > In the yaml/command line will be only 'handle', 'parent'.
And the scope inside parent is 'handle', not subset of 'net-shaper'? Just to be 100% sure :) > > Unless you have a strong reason to do this to simplify the code - > > "from netlink perspective" it looks like unnecessary nesting. > > The operation arguments describe the node, there's no need to nest > > things in another layer. > > Ok, the code complexity should not change much. Side question: currently > the node() operation allows specifying all the b/w related attributes > for the 'node' shaper, should I keep them? (and move them in the main > yaml scope) Up to you, I was surprised they were there (I expected @group to be solely about creation of the RR node, and rate limit would have to be set via a separate @set). But I don't expect providing rate limit params in @group to be problematic and user space may find it convenient. So I'm neutral. And yes, they should sit directly at the message level, not in any nest.
