Hi Simon, On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 03:39:05PM +0100, Simon Horman wrote: > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 12:12:32PM +0100, Phil Sutter wrote: > > The different encapsulation types are described in ENCAP_* > > non-terminals, but ENCAP definition lists them without the ENCAP_ > > prefix. Fix this for consistency. > > > > Signed-off-by: Phil Sutter <p...@nwl.cc> > > --- > > man/man8/ip-route.8.in | 3 ++- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/man/man8/ip-route.8.in b/man/man8/ip-route.8.in > > index 11dd4ca7abf68..26dfe0b06c86b 100644 > > --- a/man/man8/ip-route.8.in > > +++ b/man/man8/ip-route.8.in > > @@ -187,7 +187,8 @@ throw " | " unreachable " | " prohibit " | " blackhole > > " | " nat " ]" > > > > .ti -8 > > .IR ENCAP " := [ " > > -.IR MPLS " | " IP " | " BPF " | " SEG6 " | " SEG6LOCAL " ] " > > +.IR ENCAP_MPLS " | " ENCAP_IP " | " ENCAP_BPF " | " > > +.IR ENCAP_SEG6 " | " ENCAP_SEG6LOCAL " ] " > > > > .ti -8 > > .IR ENCAP_MPLS " := " > > This looks good but do we have another inconsistency with regards > to ENCAP and ENCAPTYPE ENCAPHDR (further down). > > Glancing over the file the following also seem inconsistent: > > * NH / NEXTHOP > * SCOPE / SCOPE_VAL
Well, strictly speaking yes. If I want to know more about NH listed in synopsis I can't find it further down. Though its description in 'nexthop' is incomplete, as well. My personal focus is that non-terminals in synopsis are defined in there as well, otherwise I can't parse and the thrown exception is hard to clean off my screen. ;) My assumption (actually what *I* do) is to search for terminals in order to get more info. For instance, I would search for 'nexthop' or 'encap' not 'NH'. I guess the broader question is about the scope of non-terminals in synopsis and description sections - I don't necessarily consider them related. Of course feel free to fix what you don't like, I'll review and (N)ACK if you put me in Cc. :) Cheers, Phil
