On 12 March 2019 21:33:48 EET, Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org>
wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 18:41:27 +0200
>Nikolay Aleksandrov <niko...@cumulusnetworks.com> wrote:
>
>I like it.
>
>> + print_u64(PRINT_ANY, "rx_v1", "RX: v1 %llu ",
>> + mstats->igmp_v1reports[BR_MCAST_DIR_RX]);
>> + print_u64(PRINT_ANY, "rx_v2", "v2 %llu ",
>> + mstats->igmp_v2reports[BR_MCAST_DIR_RX]);
>> + print_u64(PRINT_ANY, "rx_v3", "v3 %llu\n",
>> + mstats->igmp_v3reports[BR_MCAST_DIR_RX]);
>> + print_string(PRINT_FP, NULL, "%-16s ", "");
>> + print_u64(PRINT_ANY, "tx_v1", "TX: v1 %llu ",
>> + mstats->igmp_v1reports[BR_MCAST_DIR_TX]);
>> + print_u64(PRINT_ANY, "tx_v2", "v2 %llu",
>> + mstats->igmp_v2reports[BR_MCAST_DIR_TX]);
>> + print_u64(PRINT_ANY, "tx_v3", "v3 %llu\n",
>> + mstats->igmp_v3reports[BR_MCAST_DIR_TX]);
>
>Maybe the IGMP reports should be shown in JSON as as an array?
>Or use "rx_igmpv1" the tag could be more descriptive
Please note that these are inside of an object called "igmp_reports",
if I change them it will become:
"igmp_reports" : {"rx_igmpv1" :0}
I think adding igmp inside is redundant.
Thanks,
Nik
