> On Jul 22, 2019, at 5:11 PM, David Ahern <dsah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/22/19 1:11 PM, Patel, Vedang wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 22, 2019, at 11:21 AM, David Ahern <dsah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 7/19/19 3:40 PM, Vedang Patel wrote:
>>>> In iproute2 txtime-assist series, it was pointed out that print_bool()
>>>> should be used to print binary values. This is to make it JSON friendly.
>>>>
>>>> So, make the corresponding changes in ETF.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 8ccd49383cdc ("etf: Add skip_sock_check")
>>>> Reported-by: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Vedang Patel <vedang.pa...@intel.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> tc/q_etf.c | 12 ++++++------
>>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/tc/q_etf.c b/tc/q_etf.c
>>>> index c2090589bc64..307c50eed48b 100644
>>>> --- a/tc/q_etf.c
>>>> +++ b/tc/q_etf.c
>>>> @@ -176,12 +176,12 @@ static int etf_print_opt(struct qdisc_util *qu, FILE
>>>> *f, struct rtattr *opt)
>>>> get_clock_name(qopt->clockid));
>>>>
>>>> print_uint(PRINT_ANY, "delta", "delta %d ", qopt->delta);
>>>> - print_string(PRINT_ANY, "offload", "offload %s ",
>>>> - (qopt->flags & TC_ETF_OFFLOAD_ON) ? "on" :
>>>> "off");
>>>> - print_string(PRINT_ANY, "deadline_mode", "deadline_mode %s ",
>>>> - (qopt->flags & TC_ETF_DEADLINE_MODE_ON) ? "on"
>>>> : "off");
>>>> - print_string(PRINT_ANY, "skip_sock_check", "skip_sock_check %s",
>>>> - (qopt->flags & TC_ETF_SKIP_SOCK_CHECK) ? "on" :
>>>> "off");
>>>> + if (qopt->flags & TC_ETF_OFFLOAD_ON)
>>>> + print_bool(PRINT_ANY, "offload", "offload ", true);
>>>> + if (qopt->flags & TC_ETF_DEADLINE_MODE_ON)
>>>> + print_bool(PRINT_ANY, "deadline_mode", "deadline_mode ", true);
>>>> + if (qopt->flags & TC_ETF_SKIP_SOCK_CHECK)
>>>> + print_bool(PRINT_ANY, "skip_sock_check", "skip_sock_check",
>>>> true);
>>>>
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>
>>> This changes existing output for TC_ETF_OFFLOAD_ON and
>>> TC_ETF_DEADLINE_MODE_ON which were added a year ago.
>> Yes, this is a good point. I missed that.
>>
>> Another idea is to use is_json_context() and call print_bool() there. But,
>> that will still change values corresponding to the json output for the above
>> flags from “on”/“off” to “true”/“false”. I am not sure if this is a big
>> issue.
>>
>> My suggestion is to keep the code as is. what do you think?
>>
>
> I think we need automated checkers for new code. ;-)
>
> The first 2 should not change for backward compatibility - unless there
> is agreement that this feature is too new and long term it is better to
> print as above.
>
> Then the new one should follow context of the other 2 - consistency IMHO
> takes precedence.
Thanks for the inputs.
Let’s keep whatever is currently present upstream and you can ignore this patch.
Thanks,
Vedang
