[ovs-dev] [PATCH 0/2] ovs-appctl Changes
jpettit at nicira.com
Thu Sep 17 05:50:40 UTC 2009
On Sep 16, 2009, at 7:59 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Justin Pettit <jpettit at nicira.com> writes:
>> This is an attempt to make ovs-appctl a bit easier to use. Requiring
>> the user to type in the full path can be a bit cumbersome. In most
>> installs, this commit will allow the user to just specify the daemon
>> name. I'm not sure if "-d" and "--daemon" are the correct ways to
>> specify this, since I tend to think of "-d" as meaning enable
>> I don't suppose it matters that much.
> Great idea, I've been meaning to do this for some time.
> I was thinking about making the semantics exactly match those of
> the --target option to ovs-vsctl, though. Does that make sense
> to you?
My understanding is that ovs-vsctl is aimed only at ovs-vswitchd,
whereas ovs-appctl can be pointed at any daemon (currently ovs-
vswitchd and ovs-brcompatd). Thus, an argument isn't required for ovs-
vsctl. We could make ovs-appctl default to point to ovs-vswitchd
(this is likely the common case), and then it could be overridden
manually if the user wish to point to a different daemon. What are
>> I think the existing "-t" and "--target" options would be
>> better renamed "-s" and "--socket" or something similar, but I
>> didn't want to break any existing scripts. However, if there
>> are no complaints, I'd be happy to make the change.
> I like "target". Can you explain why "socket" is better?
My thinking was that the documentation refers to the daemon as a
"target", so a more specific term may be useful to distinguish between
the different ways to identify the daemon. For example, this excerpt
from the man page:
The available target options are:
[-t socket | --target=socket] [-d daemon | --daemon=daemon]
Perhaps we should just use a different term for that first use of
"target" on the first line. I really don't feel passionately about
More information about the dev