Hi Ales, Xavier, Thanks for the patch and review!
I didn't look at the code change closely but I wanted to weigh in on the discussion below. On 10/24/25 7:48 AM, Ales Musil wrote: >> nit: Should they not be just listed after other logical switch commands ? >> And should there be lsp-... instead of ls-...? Looks like you hesitated as >> well (see second type below) 🙂 >> > > You are right, I had my inner fight about what it should > be called. I don't have a strong preference now that you > mentioned I'm more inclined towards lsp-* 🙂 > > I'll give others a bit of time to express their opinions > about the naming before merging it. > I was chatting about adding such a helper command before with Ales and maybe that's what created the confusion.. One of the options we were discussing was, IIRC, to expect that the switch port already existed and then just to do all the "boring" work of setting its addresses, options, router-port etc in a single command. However, in this patch the command creates the switch port (if may-exist=false). So I think Xavier is right, "lsp-add-router-port LS PORT LRP_PEER" probably sounds better. Same for localnet: "lsp-add-localnet-port ...". Regards, Dumitru _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
