On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 12:33:03PM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 11:59:55AM +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> >
> > I'm sorry I didn't notice before but this just reverts the change done
> > by commit 49572501664d ("iproute2: clarification of various man8 pages").
> > IMHO the problem is that both versions are equally confusing as the word
> > "priority" can be understood in two different senses.
> >
> > How about more explicit formulation, e.g.
> >
> > ... in order of decreasing logical priority (i.e. increasing numeric
> > values).
> >
> > Would that be better?
>
> Looks like the real issue is missing definition of priority. What about
> this:
>
> diff --git a/man/man8/ip-rule.8 b/man/man8/ip-rule.8
> index 3508d8090fd2c..13fe9f7f892ee 100644
> --- a/man/man8/ip-rule.8
> +++ b/man/man8/ip-rule.8
> @@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ Each policy routing rule consists of a
> .B selector
> and an
> .B action predicate.
> -The RPDB is scanned in order of increasing priority. The selector
> +The RPDB is scanned in order of decreasing priority. The selector
> of each rule is applied to {source address, destination address, incoming
> interface, tos, fwmark} and, if the selector matches the packet,
> the action is performed. The action predicate may return with success.
> @@ -221,8 +221,10 @@ value to match.
>
> .TP
> .BI priority " PREFERENCE"
> -the priority of this rule. Each rule should have an explicitly
> -set
> +the priority of this rule.
> +.I PREFERENCE
> +is an unsigned integer value, higher number means lower priority. Each rule
> +should have an explicitly set
> .I unique
> priority value.
> The options preference and order are synonyms with priority.
Formally, this would be certainly sufficient. But for clarity (and
inattentive readers), I would still prefer to be more explicit in the
first hunk, e.g.
... in order of decreasing priority (increasing PREFERENCE values).
Michal Kubecek
