Hm. The behavior I implemented was this: - If the second output exists, emit fragments & short packets to the second output with no message.
- If the second output does not exist, then the user was obviously thinking there would be no fragments or short packets. Print a message the first time a surprise is encountered. No VERBOSE keyword. Does this make sense? SetUDPChecksum isn't a Check... elekment, so defaulting to true seems OK to me. Ian Rose wrote: > Very minor point here, but you might want that keyword to default to > false instead. Not only does this avoid behavior changes in all legacy > code, but its more consistent with similar, existing elements with a > VERBOSE keyword (such as CheckARPHeader, CheckIPHeader and CheckTCPHeader). > > - Ian > > > Eddie Kohler wrote: >> Hi Bart, >> >> Totally reasonable. A patch to this effect is checked in. >> E >> >> >> Bart Braem wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> SetUDPChecksum now uses checked_output_push to output packets it can >>> not checksum. However, it would be nice if some warning would be >>> output, this silent behaviour is quite hard to debug. I suggest >>> giving a warning when packets are in this case, based on a verbose >>> keyword that defaults to on. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Bart Braem >> _______________________________________________ >> click mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/click _______________________________________________ click mailing list [email protected] https://amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/click
