I'm not sure that exit is the right way to go here, or at least I would like some sort of agreement from everyone on what is the right thing to write and then to actually make the cli entirely consistent along these lines.
Can you help me get a deeper understanding on what the goal/motivation of this patch is? Why only route-maps are we worrying about sub-modes? donald On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 10:45 PM, Lou Berger <[email protected]> wrote: > Isn't that the purpose of exit? The command ' already there, it's just > missing from config_write... > > Lou > > On January 4, 2016 9:42:47 PM Donald Sharp <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Why not use '!' instead of 'exit'. I assume the goal is to signal that >> we are done route-map input. >> >> I would prefer that we come up with a methodology to handle this for all >> end blocks, instead of just for route-maps. >> >> donald >> >> On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Lou Berger <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> The last route-map written to config should have an "exit" at the end to >>> return to the main node from route-map processing. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Lou Berger <[email protected]> >>> Signed-off-by: David Lamparter <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> lib/routemap.c | 2 ++ >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/lib/routemap.c b/lib/routemap.c >>> index 7302e23..116c8bd 100644 >>> --- a/lib/routemap.c >>> +++ b/lib/routemap.c >>> @@ -1288,6 +1288,8 @@ route_map_config_write (struct vty *vty) >>> >>> write++; >>> } >>> + if (!first) >>> + vty_out (vty, " exit%s", VTY_NEWLINE); >>> return write; >>> } >>> >>> -- >>> 2.1.3 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Quagga-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev >>> >> >>
_______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
