route: expose nexthop id attribute #386
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
I didn't try to link the nexthop and route caches for now, to keep the changes simple. |
thom311
requested changes
May 16, 2024
lib/route/route_obj.c
Outdated
| @@ -284,6 +289,9 @@ static void route_dump_details(struct nl_object *a, struct nl_dump_params *p) | |||
| r->rt_ttl_propagate ? "enabled" : "disabled"); | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| if (r->ce_mask & ROUTE_ATTR_NHID && r->rt_nhid != 0) | |||
| nl_dump(p, "nhid %d ", r->rt_nhid); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
%u
that is appropriate for the type of r->rt_nhid, but it's also what iproute2 does.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fixed, and yes, %u sounds more appropriate.
KanjiMonster
force-pushed
the
jogo_route_nhid
branch
from
11943fb to
2a4fac5
Compare
|
There is still a Rest lgtm. |
Routes may reference a nexthop (group) via the new nexthop API by its ID, so add accessors for setting and getting it. Referencing a nexthop is mutually exclusive to specifiying nexthops in the route, so make sure we do not do that when creating netlink messages (which may exist both, since netlink messages from the kernel contain both unless 'nexthop_compat_mode' is disabled). $ ip -6 r 2001:db8:3::/64 nhid 20 metric 1024 pref medium nexthop via 2001:db8:1::2 dev v0 weight 1 nexthop via 2001:db8:2::2 dev v1 weight 1 Before: $ nl-route-list inet6 2001:db8:3::/64 table main type unicast via 2001:db8:1::2 dev v0 via 2001:db8:2::2 dev v1 After: $ nl-route-list inet6 2001:db8:3::/64 table main type unicast nhid 20 via 2001:db8:1::2 dev v0 via 2001:db8:2::2 dev v1 Signed-off-by: Jonas Gorski <[email protected]>
KanjiMonster
force-pushed
the
jogo_route_nhid
branch
from
2a4fac5 to
b4d9941
Compare
Oops, fixed. |
thom311
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 17, 2024
Routes may reference a nexthop (group) via the new nexthop API by its ID, so add accessors for setting and getting it. Referencing a nexthop is mutually exclusive to specifiying nexthops in the route, so make sure we do not do that when creating netlink messages (which may exist both, since netlink messages from the kernel contain both unless 'nexthop_compat_mode' is disabled). $ ip -6 r 2001:db8:3::/64 nhid 20 metric 1024 pref medium nexthop via 2001:db8:1::2 dev v0 weight 1 nexthop via 2001:db8:2::2 dev v1 weight 1 Before: $ nl-route-list inet6 2001:db8:3::/64 table main type unicast via 2001:db8:1::2 dev v0 via 2001:db8:2::2 dev v1 After: $ nl-route-list inet6 2001:db8:3::/64 table main type unicast nhid 20 via 2001:db8:1::2 dev v0 via 2001:db8:2::2 dev v1 Signed-off-by: Jonas Gorski <[email protected]> #386
|
merged as 3e08063 Thank you!! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Routes may reference a nexthop (group) via the new nexthop API by its ID, so add accessors for setting and getting it.
Referencing a nexthop is mutually exclusive to specifiying nexthops in the route, so make sure we do not do that when creating netlink messages (which may exist both, since netlink messages from the kernel contain both unless 'nexthop_compat_mode' is disabled).
Before:
After: