Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org> writes:
> On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 12:23:04 -0600
> David Ahern <dsah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/23/20 3:59 AM, Petr Machata wrote:
>> >
>> > Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org> writes:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 20:06:15 +0300
>> >> Petr Machata <pe...@mellanox.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?
>
> Sure that is fine, maybe a comment would help?
Something like this?
/* In FP, report the "set" command as "val" to keep
* backward compatibility.
*/
print_string(PRINT_FP, NULL, ": %s",
cmd ? "add" : "val");
print_string(PRINT_JSON, "cmd", NULL,
cmd ? "add" : "set");
