On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 22:00:40 +0300
Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 16:56:43 +0200 Phil Sutter <p...@nwl.cc> wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> Could be; Not that it matters much, but evidence in parse_egress() shows
> that it DOES try to parse and store "index" EVEN if no "egress" seen YET.
>
> > 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.
>
> Sure. It never really worked ;)
>
> If we go that way, then some code in parse_direction needs to be
> eliminated/restructured; So we'll end up with:
> - less code in parse_direction
> - not adding any additional flexibility in arg parsing
> - bigger diff than suggested
>
> Stephen, Jamal, do you have any preference here?
My only demand is not to break existing users.
Jamal is the original developer of mirred so I would like his feedback.
