@@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ Each policy routing rule consists of a .Bselector and an .Bactionpredicate.-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.
@@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ Each policy routing rule consists of a .Bselector and an .Bactionpredicate.-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
@@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ Each policy routing rule consists of a .Bselector and an .Bactionpredicate.-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:
@@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ Each policy routing rule consists of a .Bselector and an .Bactionpredicate.-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 .BIpriority" PREFERENCE"-the priority of this rule. Each rule should have an explicitly-set+the priority of this rule.+.IPREFERENCE+is an unsigned integer value, higher number means lower priority. Each rule+should have an explicitly set .Iunique priority value. The options preference and order are synonyms with priority.
From: Michal Kubecek <hidden> Date: 2016-09-08 11:48:11
On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 12:33:03PM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote:
quoted hunk
On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 11:59:55AM +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote:
quoted
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:
@@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ Each policy routing rule consists of a .Bselector and an .Bactionpredicate.-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 .BIpriority" PREFERENCE"-the priority of this rule. Each rule should have an explicitly-set+the priority of this rule.+.IPREFERENCE+is an unsigned integer value, higher number means lower priority. Each rule+should have an explicitly set .Iunique 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
From: Phil Sutter <phil@nwl.cc> Date: 2016-09-08 12:43:20
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:
quoted
On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 11:59:55AM +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote:
quoted
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:
@@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ Each policy routing rule consists of a .Bselector and an .Bactionpredicate.-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 .BIpriority" PREFERENCE"-the priority of this rule. Each rule should have an explicitly-set+the priority of this rule.+.IPREFERENCE+is an unsigned integer value, higher number means lower priority. Each rule+should have an explicitly set .Iunique 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
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org> Date: 2016-09-20 16:38:06
On Thu, 8 Sep 2016 14:43:17 +0200
Phil Sutter [off-list ref] wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 01:48:08PM +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote:
quoted
On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 12:33:03PM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote:
quoted
On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 11:59:55AM +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote:
quoted
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:
@@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ Each policy routing rule consists of a .Bselector and an .Bactionpredicate.-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 .BIpriority" PREFERENCE"-the priority of this rule. Each rule should have an explicitly-set+the priority of this rule.+.IPREFERENCE+is an unsigned integer value, higher number means lower priority. Each rule+should have an explicitly set .Iunique 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.