On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 21:42:29 +0200
niko...@cumulusnetworks.com wrote:
> 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
>
ok, that makes sense now
