[ovs-dev] [PATCH ovn 2/3] ovn-nbctl: Updates for container integration.

Russell Bryant rbryant at redhat.com
Wed Apr 8 15:41:28 UTC 2015


On 04/08/2015 11:34 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
> On 04/08/2015 01:58 AM, Justin Pettit wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 7, 2015, at 8:03 AM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 04/06/2015 06:53 PM, Justin Pettit wrote:
>>>
>>>> It might be nice to print the parent and tag in "lport-list".
>>>
>>> Any thoughts on formatting?  I don't care much.  I was trying to keep it
>>> simple so it can be parsed without too much pain in scripts.
>>
>> I agree simple is a good approach.  Looking back at it, maybe it's
>> not worth printing those values in the Northbound database, since
>> those values are closer to physical space than logical.  It would be
>> nice at some point to print all the fields in the record, but we can
>> look to add that when we extend the utility later.
> 
> OK, I can take it back out of the main listing.
> 
>> By the way, would you be okay with our changing ovn-nbctl commands to
>> more closely mimic ovs-vsctl?  The main differences I see are
>> changing the names of the following commands:
>>
>> 	lswitch-add -> add-lswitch
>> 	lswitch-del -> del-lswitch
>> 	lswitch-list -> list-lswitch
>> 	lport-add -> add-lport
>> 	lport-del -> del-lport
>> 	lport-list -> list-lport
> 
> I'm torn.  I get the argument about making it match ovs-vsctl, but I
> like the current naming better.  :-)
> 
> It does seem odd to swap those but leave the rest like
> "lswitch-set-external-id", but I see that effectively makes it
> consistent with ovs-vsctl, so I'm OK with it.
> 
>> And, finally, change the order of the "lport-add" arguments so it
>> would be "add-lport lswitch lport".
> 
> Sounds good.
> 
>> It's pretty minor (and I realize your naming convention is more
>> consistent), but I think it will cause less confusion when switching
>> between the utilities.  I'm happy to write up a patch if you want,
>> but I imagine it will require changing the OpenStack portion, too, so
>> I wanted to check with you.
> 
> It will require changing the OpenStack code, but it will be a trivial
> fix, so no big deal.
> 

Another alternative would be to add command alias support.  So, the
command would still be "lport-add" and would appear as such in the usage
text, but we could make it so "add-lport" still worked.

If you like that, I'd be happy to work on a patch for that.

-- 
Russell Bryant



More information about the dev mailing list