On 2020-10-18 8:16 a.m., Vlad Buslov wrote:
On Sat 17 Oct 2020 at 14:20, Jamal Hadi Salim <j...@mojatatu.com> wrote:
On 2020-10-16 12:42 p.m., Vlad Buslov wrote:
Either one sounds appealing - the refactoring feels simpler
as opposed to a->terse_print().
With such refactoring we action type will be printed before some basic
validation which can lead to outputting the type together with error
message. Consider tunnel key action output callback as example:
static int print_tunnel_key(struct action_util *au, FILE *f, struct rtattr *arg)
{
struct rtattr *tb[TCA_TUNNEL_KEY_MAX + 1];
struct tc_tunnel_key *parm;
if (!arg)
return 0;
parse_rtattr_nested(tb, TCA_TUNNEL_KEY_MAX, arg);
if (!tb[TCA_TUNNEL_KEY_PARMS]) {
fprintf(stderr, "Missing tunnel_key parameters\n");
return -1;
}
parm = RTA_DATA(tb[TCA_TUNNEL_KEY_PARMS]);
print_string(PRINT_ANY, "kind", "%s ", "tunnel_key");
If print "kind" call is moved before checking the arg it will always be
printed, even when immediately followed by "Missing tunnel_key
parameters\n" string. Is this a concern?
That could be a good thing, no? you get to see the action name with the
error. Its really not a big deal if you decide to do a->terse_print()
instead.
BTW: the action index, unless i missed something, is not transported
from the kernel for terse option. It is an important parameter
when actions are shared by filters (since they will have the same
index).
Am i missing something?
Yes, tc_action_ops->dump(), which outputs action index among other data,
is not called at all by terse dump.
I am suggesting it is an important detail that is currently missing.
Alternatively since you have the cookies in there - it is feasible that
someone who creates the action could "encode" the index in the cookie.
But that makes it a "proprietary" choice of whoever is creating
the filter/action.
cheers,
jamal
