On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 02:45:39PM +0530, Martin Varghese wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 09:45:04PM +0200, Guillaume Nault wrote:
> > + } else if (matches(*argv, "ethertype") == 0) {
> > + NEXT_ARG();
> > + check_duparg(&attrs, IFLA_BAREUDP_ETHERTYPE,
> > + "ethertype", *argv);
> > + if (ll_proto_a2n(ðertype, *argv))
> Does this function takes care of mpls proto names ?
>
> The original idea of bareudp is to allow even reserved ethertypes.Hence i
> think we
> must take ethertype in hex aswell
ll_proto_a2n() handles both symbolic and numeric ethertypes.
> > + invarg("ethertype", *argv);
> > + } else if (matches(*argv, "srcportmin") == 0) {
> > + NEXT_ARG();
> > + check_duparg(&attrs, IFLA_BAREUDP_SRCPORT_MIN,
> > + "srcportmin", *argv);
> > + if (get_u16(&srcportmin, *argv, 0))
> > + invarg("srcportmin", *argv);
> > + } else if (matches(*argv, "multiproto") == 0) {
> > + check_duparg(&attrs, IFLA_BAREUDP_MULTIPROTO_MODE,
> > + *argv, *argv);
> > + multiproto = true;
> > + } else if (matches(*argv, "nomultiproto") == 0) {
> do we need nomultiproto flag. Is it redundant
It allows users to exlicitely disable multiproto without having to rely
on default values. Also nomultiproto appears in the detailed output, so
it should be usable as input.
> > + if (tb[IFLA_BAREUDP_MULTIPROTO_MODE])
> > + print_bool(PRINT_ANY, "multiproto", "multiproto ", true);
> > + else
> > + print_bool(PRINT_ANY, "multiproto", "nomultiproto ", false);
> Comments from step...@networkplumber.org on the first version patch is given
> below
>
> One of the unwritten rules of ip commands is that the show format
> should match the command line arguments. In this case extmode is
> really a presence flag not a boolean. best to print that with
> json null command.
The detailed output prints either "multiproto" or "nomultiproto". Both
keywords are accepted as configuration input. I can't see any deviation
from the unwritten rule here.
