On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 05:22:39PM +0300, Shmulik Ladkani wrote: > Hi Phil, > > On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 11:46:33 +0200, p...@nwl.cc wrote: > > According to the action's help text (and the man page which is based > > upon that), this behaviour is perfectly fine: > > > > | Usage: mirred <DIRECTION> <ACTION> [index INDEX] <dev DEVICENAME> > > > > So first argument *must* be the direction, second one *must* be the > > action, then an optional index and the last one *must* be the interface. > > There is an inconsistency betweem man/help and code. > > Actual code, since first committed, attempts to parse "index" as 1st > argument (without success), see parse_mirred(): > > if (matches(*argv, "egress") == 0 || matches(*argv, "index") == 0) { > int ret = parse_egress(a, &argc, &argv, tca_id, n);
Oh, I missed that! But to me this looks like the author wanted to avoid erroring out with "mirred option not supported index" in case of missing 'egress' keyword. >From that perspective, I think parse_direction() really should be removed and it's content made part of parse_mirred() itself. > > While I don't see a problem with changing that (apart from that I don't > > think it's necessary) > > Not "changing" per-se, but rather "fixing", at least according code > author's intention :) I still think we don't fully know the author's intention. :) > As I suggested in the notes part of the commit log, > > >> An alternative solution: banning "index" as 1st argument in parse_mirred > > I ok with removing the code trying to support "index" as 1st argument as > well. > I only assumed one might want this behaviour due to intention expressed > by original code. Yeah, I'd go with least effort approach, i.e. not adding any additional flexibility in arg parsing. Since the docs never stated otherwise, I don't think it was a real issue for users. Cheers, Phil