[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cdb5f51b-a8aa-7deb-1085-4fab7e01d64f@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2020 12:23:04 -0600
From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To: Petr Machata <petrm@...lanox.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, dsahern@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2-next] tc: pedit: Support JSON dumping
On 4/23/20 3:59 AM, Petr Machata wrote:
>
> Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 20:06:15 +0300
>> Petr Machata <petrm@...lanox.com> wrote:
>>
>>> + print_string(PRINT_FP, NULL, ": %s",
>>> + cmd ? "add" : "val");
>>> + print_string(PRINT_JSON, "cmd", NULL,
>>> + cmd ? "add" : "set");
>>
>> Having different outputs for JSON and file here. Is that necessary?
>> JSON output is new, and could just mirror existing usage.
>
> This code outputs this bit:
>
> {
> "htype": "udp",
> "offset": 0,
> "cmd": "set", <----
> "val": "3039",
> "mask": "ffff0000"
> },
>
> There are currently two commands, set and add. The words used to
> configure these actions are set and add as well. The way these commands
> are dumped should be the same, too. The only reason why "set" is
> reported as "val" in file is that set used to be the implied action.
>
> JSON doesn't have to be backward compatible, so it should present the
> expected words.
>
Stephen: do you agree?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists