On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 21:13:50 +0000 "Patel, Vedang" <vedang.pa...@intel.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 6, 2019, at 12:43 PM, Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org> > > wrote: > > > > On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 10:52:18 -0700 > > Vedang Patel <vedang.pa...@intel.com> wrote: > > > >> @@ -405,6 +420,7 @@ static int taprio_print_opt(struct qdisc_util *qu, > >> FILE *f, struct rtattr *opt) > >> struct rtattr *tb[TCA_TAPRIO_ATTR_MAX + 1]; > >> struct tc_mqprio_qopt *qopt = 0; > >> __s32 clockid = CLOCKID_INVALID; > >> + __u32 offload_flags = 0; > >> int i; > >> > >> if (opt == NULL) > >> @@ -442,6 +458,11 @@ static int taprio_print_opt(struct qdisc_util *qu, > >> FILE *f, struct rtattr *opt) > >> > >> print_string(PRINT_ANY, "clockid", "clockid %s", > >> get_clock_name(clockid)); > >> > >> + if (tb[TCA_TAPRIO_ATTR_OFFLOAD_FLAGS]) > >> + offload_flags = > >> rta_getattr_u32(tb[TCA_TAPRIO_ATTR_OFFLOAD_FLAGS]); > >> + > >> + print_uint(PRINT_ANY, "offload", " offload %x", offload_flags); > > > > I don't think offload flags should be printed at all if not present. > > > > Why not? > Will make this in the next version. Mostly this is so that output doesn't change for users who aren't using offload or have old kernel.
