* [PATCH bug-fix] iproute: fix documentation for ip rule scan order @ 2016-08-31 0:32 Iskren Chernev 2016-09-01 16:04 ` Stephen Hemminger 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Iskren Chernev @ 2016-08-31 0:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: netdev >From 416f45b62f33017d19a9b14e7b0179807c993cbe Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Iskren Chernev <iskren@imo.im> Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 17:08:54 -0700 Subject: [PATCH bug-fix] iproute: fix documentation for ip rule scan order --- man/man8/ip-rule.8 | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/man/man8/ip-rule.8 b/man/man8/ip-rule.8 index 1774ae3..3508d80 100644 --- a/man/man8/ip-rule.8 +++ b/man/man8/ip-rule.8 @@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ Each policy routing rule consists of a .B selector and an .B action predicate. -The RPDB is scanned in order of decreasing priority. The selector +The RPDB is scanned in order of increasing priority. The selector of each rule is applied to {source address, destination address, incoming interface, tos, fwmark} and, if the selector matches the packet, the action is performed. The action predicate may return with success. ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH bug-fix] iproute: fix documentation for ip rule scan order 2016-08-31 0:32 [PATCH bug-fix] iproute: fix documentation for ip rule scan order Iskren Chernev @ 2016-09-01 16:04 ` Stephen Hemminger 2016-09-08 9:59 ` Michal Kubecek 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Stephen Hemminger @ 2016-09-01 16:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Iskren Chernev; +Cc: netdev On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 17:32:52 -0700 Iskren Chernev <iskren@imo.im> wrote: > From 416f45b62f33017d19a9b14e7b0179807c993cbe Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Iskren Chernev <iskren@imo.im> > Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 17:08:54 -0700 > Subject: [PATCH bug-fix] iproute: fix documentation for ip rule scan order > > --- > man/man8/ip-rule.8 | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) Applied ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH bug-fix] iproute: fix documentation for ip rule scan order 2016-09-01 16:04 ` Stephen Hemminger @ 2016-09-08 9:59 ` Michal Kubecek 2016-09-08 10:33 ` Phil Sutter 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Michal Kubecek @ 2016-09-08 9:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stephen Hemminger; +Cc: Iskren Chernev, netdev On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 09:04:54AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 17:32:52 -0700 > Iskren Chernev <iskren@imo.im> wrote: > > > From 416f45b62f33017d19a9b14e7b0179807c993cbe Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: Iskren Chernev <iskren@imo.im> > > Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 17:08:54 -0700 > > Subject: [PATCH bug-fix] iproute: fix documentation for ip rule scan order > > > > --- > > man/man8/ip-rule.8 | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/man/man8/ip-rule.8 b/man/man8/ip-rule.8 > > index 1774ae3..3508d80 100644 > > --- a/man/man8/ip-rule.8 > > +++ b/man/man8/ip-rule.8 > > @@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ Each policy routing rule consists of a > > .B selector > > and an > > .B action predicate. > > -The RPDB is scanned in order of decreasing priority. The selector > > +The RPDB is scanned in order of increasing priority. The selector > > of each rule is applied to {source address, destination address, > > incoming > > interface, tos, fwmark} and, if the selector matches the packet, > > the action is performed. The action predicate may return with success. > > -- > > 2.4.5 > > Applied I'm sorry I didn't notice before but this just reverts the change done by commit 49572501664d ("iproute2: clarification of various man8 pages"). IMHO the problem is that both versions are equally confusing as the word "priority" can be understood in two different senses. How about more explicit formulation, e.g. ... in order of decreasing logical priority (i.e. increasing numeric values). Would that be better? Michal Kubecek ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH bug-fix] iproute: fix documentation for ip rule scan order 2016-09-08 9:59 ` Michal Kubecek @ 2016-09-08 10:33 ` Phil Sutter 2016-09-08 11:48 ` Michal Kubecek 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Phil Sutter @ 2016-09-08 10:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Michal Kubecek; +Cc: Stephen Hemminger, Iskren Chernev, netdev Hi, On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 11:59:55AM +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote: > On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 09:04:54AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 17:32:52 -0700 > > Iskren Chernev <iskren@imo.im> wrote: > > > > > From 416f45b62f33017d19a9b14e7b0179807c993cbe Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > > From: Iskren Chernev <iskren@imo.im> > > > Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 17:08:54 -0700 > > > Subject: [PATCH bug-fix] iproute: fix documentation for ip rule scan order > > > > > > --- > > > man/man8/ip-rule.8 | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/man/man8/ip-rule.8 b/man/man8/ip-rule.8 > > > index 1774ae3..3508d80 100644 > > > --- a/man/man8/ip-rule.8 > > > +++ b/man/man8/ip-rule.8 > > > @@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ Each policy routing rule consists of a > > > .B selector > > > and an > > > .B action predicate. > > > -The RPDB is scanned in order of decreasing priority. The selector > > > +The RPDB is scanned in order of increasing priority. The selector > > > of each rule is applied to {source address, destination address, > > > incoming > > > interface, tos, fwmark} and, if the selector matches the packet, > > > the action is performed. The action predicate may return with success. > > > -- > > > 2.4.5 > > > > Applied > > I'm sorry I didn't notice before but this just reverts the change done > by commit 49572501664d ("iproute2: clarification of various man8 pages"). > IMHO the problem is that both versions are equally confusing as the word > "priority" can be understood in two different senses. > > How about more explicit formulation, e.g. > > ... in order of decreasing logical priority (i.e. increasing numeric > values). > > Would that be better? Looks like the real issue is missing definition of priority. What about this: diff --git a/man/man8/ip-rule.8 b/man/man8/ip-rule.8 index 3508d8090fd2c..13fe9f7f892ee 100644 --- a/man/man8/ip-rule.8 +++ b/man/man8/ip-rule.8 @@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ Each policy routing rule consists of a .B selector and an .B action predicate. -The RPDB is scanned in order of increasing priority. The selector +The RPDB is scanned in order of decreasing priority. The selector of each rule is applied to {source address, destination address, incoming interface, tos, fwmark} and, if the selector matches the packet, the action is performed. The action predicate may return with success. @@ -221,8 +221,10 @@ value to match. .TP .BI priority " PREFERENCE" -the priority of this rule. Each rule should have an explicitly -set +the priority of this rule. +.I PREFERENCE +is an unsigned integer value, higher number means lower priority. Each rule +should have an explicitly set .I unique priority value. The options preference and order are synonyms with priority. ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH bug-fix] iproute: fix documentation for ip rule scan order 2016-09-08 10:33 ` Phil Sutter @ 2016-09-08 11:48 ` Michal Kubecek 2016-09-08 12:43 ` Phil Sutter 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Michal Kubecek @ 2016-09-08 11:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Phil Sutter, Stephen Hemminger, Iskren Chernev, netdev On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 12:33:03PM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote: > On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 11:59:55AM +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote: > > > > I'm sorry I didn't notice before but this just reverts the change done > > by commit 49572501664d ("iproute2: clarification of various man8 pages"). > > IMHO the problem is that both versions are equally confusing as the word > > "priority" can be understood in two different senses. > > > > How about more explicit formulation, e.g. > > > > ... in order of decreasing logical priority (i.e. increasing numeric > > values). > > > > Would that be better? > > Looks like the real issue is missing definition of priority. What about > this: > > diff --git a/man/man8/ip-rule.8 b/man/man8/ip-rule.8 > index 3508d8090fd2c..13fe9f7f892ee 100644 > --- a/man/man8/ip-rule.8 > +++ b/man/man8/ip-rule.8 > @@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ Each policy routing rule consists of a > .B selector > and an > .B action predicate. > -The RPDB is scanned in order of increasing priority. The selector > +The RPDB is scanned in order of decreasing priority. The selector > of each rule is applied to {source address, destination address, incoming > interface, tos, fwmark} and, if the selector matches the packet, > the action is performed. The action predicate may return with success. > @@ -221,8 +221,10 @@ value to match. > > .TP > .BI priority " PREFERENCE" > -the priority of this rule. Each rule should have an explicitly > -set > +the priority of this rule. > +.I PREFERENCE > +is an unsigned integer value, higher number means lower priority. Each rule > +should have an explicitly set > .I unique > priority value. > The options preference and order are synonyms with priority. Formally, this would be certainly sufficient. But for clarity (and inattentive readers), I would still prefer to be more explicit in the first hunk, e.g. ... in order of decreasing priority (increasing PREFERENCE values). Michal Kubecek ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH bug-fix] iproute: fix documentation for ip rule scan order 2016-09-08 11:48 ` Michal Kubecek @ 2016-09-08 12:43 ` Phil Sutter 2016-09-20 16:38 ` Stephen Hemminger 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Phil Sutter @ 2016-09-08 12:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Michal Kubecek; +Cc: Stephen Hemminger, Iskren Chernev, netdev On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 01:48:08PM +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote: > On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 12:33:03PM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 11:59:55AM +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote: > > > > > > I'm sorry I didn't notice before but this just reverts the change done > > > by commit 49572501664d ("iproute2: clarification of various man8 pages"). > > > IMHO the problem is that both versions are equally confusing as the word > > > "priority" can be understood in two different senses. > > > > > > How about more explicit formulation, e.g. > > > > > > ... in order of decreasing logical priority (i.e. increasing numeric > > > values). > > > > > > Would that be better? > > > > Looks like the real issue is missing definition of priority. What about > > this: > > > > diff --git a/man/man8/ip-rule.8 b/man/man8/ip-rule.8 > > index 3508d8090fd2c..13fe9f7f892ee 100644 > > --- a/man/man8/ip-rule.8 > > +++ b/man/man8/ip-rule.8 > > @@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ Each policy routing rule consists of a > > .B selector > > and an > > .B action predicate. > > -The RPDB is scanned in order of increasing priority. The selector > > +The RPDB is scanned in order of decreasing priority. The selector > > of each rule is applied to {source address, destination address, incoming > > interface, tos, fwmark} and, if the selector matches the packet, > > the action is performed. The action predicate may return with success. > > @@ -221,8 +221,10 @@ value to match. > > > > .TP > > .BI priority " PREFERENCE" > > -the priority of this rule. Each rule should have an explicitly > > -set > > +the priority of this rule. > > +.I PREFERENCE > > +is an unsigned integer value, higher number means lower priority. Each rule > > +should have an explicitly set > > .I unique > > priority value. > > The options preference and order are synonyms with priority. > > Formally, this would be certainly sufficient. But for clarity (and > inattentive readers), I would still prefer to be more explicit in the > first hunk, e.g. > > ... in order of decreasing priority (increasing PREFERENCE values). I'm fine with that, though fear mentioning PREFERENCE here might confuse readers. I'd go with "i.e. increasing numeric values" instead. But after all this is quite a discussion for such a tiny bit of documentation. :) Cheers, Phil ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH bug-fix] iproute: fix documentation for ip rule scan order 2016-09-08 12:43 ` Phil Sutter @ 2016-09-20 16:38 ` Stephen Hemminger 0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Stephen Hemminger @ 2016-09-20 16:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Phil Sutter; +Cc: Michal Kubecek, Iskren Chernev, netdev On Thu, 8 Sep 2016 14:43:17 +0200 Phil Sutter <phil@nwl.cc> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 01:48:08PM +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 12:33:03PM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 11:59:55AM +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote: > > > > > > > > I'm sorry I didn't notice before but this just reverts the change done > > > > by commit 49572501664d ("iproute2: clarification of various man8 pages"). > > > > IMHO the problem is that both versions are equally confusing as the word > > > > "priority" can be understood in two different senses. > > > > > > > > How about more explicit formulation, e.g. > > > > > > > > ... in order of decreasing logical priority (i.e. increasing numeric > > > > values). > > > > > > > > Would that be better? > > > > > > Looks like the real issue is missing definition of priority. What about > > > this: > > > > > > diff --git a/man/man8/ip-rule.8 b/man/man8/ip-rule.8 > > > index 3508d8090fd2c..13fe9f7f892ee 100644 > > > --- a/man/man8/ip-rule.8 > > > +++ b/man/man8/ip-rule.8 > > > @@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ Each policy routing rule consists of a > > > .B selector > > > and an > > > .B action predicate. > > > -The RPDB is scanned in order of increasing priority. The selector > > > +The RPDB is scanned in order of decreasing priority. The selector > > > of each rule is applied to {source address, destination address, incoming > > > interface, tos, fwmark} and, if the selector matches the packet, > > > the action is performed. The action predicate may return with success. > > > @@ -221,8 +221,10 @@ value to match. > > > > > > .TP > > > .BI priority " PREFERENCE" > > > -the priority of this rule. Each rule should have an explicitly > > > -set > > > +the priority of this rule. > > > +.I PREFERENCE > > > +is an unsigned integer value, higher number means lower priority. Each rule > > > +should have an explicitly set > > > .I unique > > > priority value. > > > The options preference and order are synonyms with priority. > > > > Formally, this would be certainly sufficient. But for clarity (and > > inattentive readers), I would still prefer to be more explicit in the > > first hunk, e.g. > > > > ... in order of decreasing priority (increasing PREFERENCE values). > > I'm fine with that, though fear mentioning PREFERENCE here might confuse > readers. I'd go with "i.e. increasing numeric values" instead. But after > all this is quite a discussion for such a tiny bit of documentation. :) > > Cheers, Phil I put in the documentation change, if you want to modify send another patch. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-09-20 16:38 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2016-08-31 0:32 [PATCH bug-fix] iproute: fix documentation for ip rule scan order Iskren Chernev 2016-09-01 16:04 ` Stephen Hemminger 2016-09-08 9:59 ` Michal Kubecek 2016-09-08 10:33 ` Phil Sutter 2016-09-08 11:48 ` Michal Kubecek 2016-09-08 12:43 ` Phil Sutter 2016-09-20 16:38 ` Stephen Hemminger
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.