Sounds reasonable to me!
Eddie Kohler wrote: > 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
