On 2016年07月04日 15:42, Zhang Chen wrote:
@item -object
filter-dump,id=@var{id},netdev=@var{dev},file=@var{filename}][,maxlen=@var{len}]
Dump the network traffic on netdev @var{dev} to the file
specified by
diff --git a/vl.c b/vl.c
index c6b9a6f..b47be6a 100644
--- a/vl.c
+++ b/vl.c
@@ -2866,7 +2866,8 @@ static bool object_create_initial(const char
*type)
g_str_equal(type, "filter-dump") ||
g_str_equal(type, "filter-mirror") ||
g_str_equal(type, "filter-redirector") ||
- g_str_equal(type, "colo-compare")) {
+ g_str_equal(type, "colo-compare") ||
+ g_str_equal(type, "filter-rewriter")) {
So this makes the patch can't be applied cleanly on master.
Yes,filter-rewriter based on colo-base in colo-compare...
So, should we make colo-base be a independent patch set?
Now, colo-base used by colo-compare and filter-rewriter.
At least the codes in this series is pretty independent, so there's no
need I think.
And I think we don't want to manually compare 100 kinds of filters in
the future. How about doing something better, e.g:
- introduce something like filter_register_type()
- recored the name of the type in a list
- iterate it here
?
Maybe we need do this after colo-compare and filter-rewriter be merged.
and make filter-dump and other filter all in this type.
Thanks
Zhang Chen
Yes.
return false;
}
.
