On Mon 26 Oct 2020 at 20:01, Jamal Hadi Salim <j...@mojatatu.com> wrote: > On 2020-10-26 1:46 p.m., Vlad Buslov wrote: >> >> On Mon 26 Oct 2020 at 19:12, Jamal Hadi Salim <j...@mojatatu.com> wrote: >>> On 2020-10-26 7:28 a.m., Vlad Buslov wrote: >>>> >>>> On Sat 24 Oct 2020 at 20:40, Jamal Hadi Salim <j...@mojatatu.com> wrote: >>> >>> [..] >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, that makes sense. I guess introducing something like 'tc action -br >>>>>> ls ..' mode implemented by means of existing terse flag + new 'also >>>>>> output action index' flag would achieve that goal. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Right. There should be no interest in the cookie here at all. Maybe >>>>> it could be optional with a flag indication. >>>>> Have time to cook a patch? I'll taste/test it. >>>> >>>> Patch to make cookie in filter terse dump optional? That would break >>>> existing terse dump users that rely on it (OVS). >>> >>> Meant patch for 'tc action -br ls' >>> >>> Which by default would not include the cookie. >> >> So action-dump-specific flag that causes act api to output action index >> (via new attribute) and skips cookie? >> > > yeah, something like TCA_ACT_FLAGS_TERSE. > > new tcf_action_dump_terse() takes one more field which says to > include or not the cookies since that is shared code and filters > can always include it. > The action index is already present in the passed tc_action > struct just needs a new TLV.
Sure, I'll try to find time this week.
