On Fri, Oct 24, 2025 at 10:21 AM Dumitru Ceara <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Ales, Xavier, > > Thanks for the patch and review! > > I didn't look at the code change closely but I wanted to weigh in on the > discussion below. > > On 10/24/25 7:48 AM, Ales Musil wrote: > >> nit: Should they not be just listed after other logical switch commands > ? > >> And should there be lsp-... instead of ls-...? Looks like you hesitated > as > >> well (see second type below) 🙂 > >> > > > > You are right, I had my inner fight about what it should > > be called. I don't have a strong preference now that you > > mentioned I'm more inclined towards lsp-* 🙂 > > > > I'll give others a bit of time to express their opinions > > about the naming before merging it. > > > > I was chatting about adding such a helper command before with Ales and > maybe that's what created the confusion.. One of the options we were > discussing was, IIRC, to expect that the switch port already existed and > then just to do all the "boring" work of setting its addresses, options, > router-port etc in a single command. > > However, in this patch the command creates the switch port (if > may-exist=false). So I think Xavier is right, "lsp-add-router-port LS > PORT LRP_PEER" probably sounds better. Same for localnet: > "lsp-add-localnet-port ...". > > Regards, > Dumitru > > Thank you Dumitru and Xavier, I went with the lsp-* version, fixed the nits, merged this into main and backported all the way down 24.03. Regards, Ales _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
