| Message ID | 20231229065241.554726-2-huangjunxian6@hisilicon.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Bugfixes for rdmatool | expand |
On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 14:52:40 +0800 Junxian Huang <huangjunxian6@hisilicon.com> wrote: > From: Chengchang Tang <tangchengchang@huawei.com> > > There will be a core dump when pretty is used as the JSON object > hasn't been opened and closed properly. > > Before: > $ rdma res show qp -jp -dd > [ { > "ifindex": 1, > "ifname": "hns_1", > "port": 1, > "lqpn": 1, > "type": "GSI", > "state": "RTS", > "sq-psn": 0, > "comm": "ib_core" > }, > "drv_sq_wqe_cnt": 128, > "drv_sq_max_gs": 2, > "drv_rq_wqe_cnt": 512, > "drv_rq_max_gs": 1, > rdma: json_writer.c:130: jsonw_end: Assertion `self->depth > 0' failed. > Aborted (core dumped) > > After: > $ rdma res show qp -jp -dd > [ { > "ifindex": 2, > "ifname": "hns_2", > "port": 1, > "lqpn": 1, > "type": "GSI", > "state": "RTS", > "sq-psn": 0, > "comm": "ib_core",{ > "drv_sq_wqe_cnt": 128, > "drv_sq_max_gs": 2, > "drv_rq_wqe_cnt": 512, > "drv_rq_max_gs": 1, > "drv_ext_sge_sge_cnt": 256 > } > } ] > > Fixes: 331152752a97 ("rdma: print driver resource attributes") > Signed-off-by: Chengchang Tang <tangchengchang@huawei.com> > Signed-off-by: Junxian Huang <huangjunxian6@hisilicon.com> This code in rdma seems to be miking json and newline functionality which creates bug traps. Also the json should have same effective output in pretty and non-pretty mode. It looks like since pretty mode add extra object layer, the nesting of {} would be different. The conversion to json_print() was done but it isn't using same conventions as ip or tc. The correct fix needs to go deeper and hit other things.
On 2023/12/30 1:21, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 14:52:40 +0800 > Junxian Huang <huangjunxian6@hisilicon.com> wrote: > >> From: Chengchang Tang <tangchengchang@huawei.com> >> >> There will be a core dump when pretty is used as the JSON object >> hasn't been opened and closed properly. >> >> Before: >> $ rdma res show qp -jp -dd >> [ { >> "ifindex": 1, >> "ifname": "hns_1", >> "port": 1, >> "lqpn": 1, >> "type": "GSI", >> "state": "RTS", >> "sq-psn": 0, >> "comm": "ib_core" >> }, >> "drv_sq_wqe_cnt": 128, >> "drv_sq_max_gs": 2, >> "drv_rq_wqe_cnt": 512, >> "drv_rq_max_gs": 1, >> rdma: json_writer.c:130: jsonw_end: Assertion `self->depth > 0' failed. >> Aborted (core dumped) >> >> After: >> $ rdma res show qp -jp -dd >> [ { >> "ifindex": 2, >> "ifname": "hns_2", >> "port": 1, >> "lqpn": 1, >> "type": "GSI", >> "state": "RTS", >> "sq-psn": 0, >> "comm": "ib_core",{ >> "drv_sq_wqe_cnt": 128, >> "drv_sq_max_gs": 2, >> "drv_rq_wqe_cnt": 512, >> "drv_rq_max_gs": 1, >> "drv_ext_sge_sge_cnt": 256 >> } >> } ] >> >> Fixes: 331152752a97 ("rdma: print driver resource attributes") >> Signed-off-by: Chengchang Tang <tangchengchang@huawei.com> >> Signed-off-by: Junxian Huang <huangjunxian6@hisilicon.com> > This code in rdma seems to be miking json and newline functionality > which creates bug traps. > > Also the json should have same effective output in pretty and non-pretty mode. > It looks like since pretty mode add extra object layer, the nesting of {} would be > different. > > The conversion to json_print() was done but it isn't using same conventions > as ip or tc. > > The correct fix needs to go deeper and hit other things. > Hi, Stephen, The root cause of this issue is that close_json_object() is being called in newline_indent(), resulting in a mismatch of {}. When fixing this problem, I was unsure why a newline() is needed in pretty mode, so I simply kept this logic and solved the issue of open_json_object() and close_json_object() not matching. However, If the output of pretty mode and not-pretty mode should be the same, then this problem can be resolved by deleting this newline_indent(). I believe the original developer may not have realized that close_json_object() is being called in newline(), which leads to this problem. To improve the code's readability, I would try to strip out close_json_obejct() from newline(). Thanks, Chengchang Tang
On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 03:44:29PM +0800, Chengchang Tang wrote: > > > On 2023/12/30 1:21, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 14:52:40 +0800 > > Junxian Huang <huangjunxian6@hisilicon.com> wrote: > > > > > From: Chengchang Tang <tangchengchang@huawei.com> > > > > > > There will be a core dump when pretty is used as the JSON object > > > hasn't been opened and closed properly. > > > > > > Before: > > > $ rdma res show qp -jp -dd > > > [ { > > > "ifindex": 1, > > > "ifname": "hns_1", > > > "port": 1, > > > "lqpn": 1, > > > "type": "GSI", > > > "state": "RTS", > > > "sq-psn": 0, > > > "comm": "ib_core" > > > }, > > > "drv_sq_wqe_cnt": 128, > > > "drv_sq_max_gs": 2, > > > "drv_rq_wqe_cnt": 512, > > > "drv_rq_max_gs": 1, > > > rdma: json_writer.c:130: jsonw_end: Assertion `self->depth > 0' failed. > > > Aborted (core dumped) > > > > > > After: > > > $ rdma res show qp -jp -dd > > > [ { > > > "ifindex": 2, > > > "ifname": "hns_2", > > > "port": 1, > > > "lqpn": 1, > > > "type": "GSI", > > > "state": "RTS", > > > "sq-psn": 0, > > > "comm": "ib_core",{ > > > "drv_sq_wqe_cnt": 128, > > > "drv_sq_max_gs": 2, > > > "drv_rq_wqe_cnt": 512, > > > "drv_rq_max_gs": 1, > > > "drv_ext_sge_sge_cnt": 256 > > > } > > > } ] > > > > > > Fixes: 331152752a97 ("rdma: print driver resource attributes") > > > Signed-off-by: Chengchang Tang <tangchengchang@huawei.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Junxian Huang <huangjunxian6@hisilicon.com> > > This code in rdma seems to be miking json and newline functionality > > which creates bug traps. > > > > Also the json should have same effective output in pretty and non-pretty mode. > > It looks like since pretty mode add extra object layer, the nesting of {} would be > > different. > > > > The conversion to json_print() was done but it isn't using same conventions > > as ip or tc. > > > > The correct fix needs to go deeper and hit other things. > > > > Hi, Stephen, > > The root cause of this issue is that close_json_object() is being called in > newline_indent(), resulting in a mismatch > of {}. > > When fixing this problem, I was unsure why a newline() is needed in pretty > mode, so I simply kept this logic and > solved the issue of open_json_object() and close_json_object() not matching. > However, If the output of pretty mode > and not-pretty mode should be the same, then this problem can be resolved by > deleting this newline_indent(). Stephen didn't say that output of pretty and not-pretty should be the same, but he said that JSON logic should be the same. Thanks > > I believe the original developer may not have realized that > close_json_object() is being called in newline(), which leads > to this problem. To improve the code's readability, I would try to strip out > close_json_obejct() from newline(). > > Thanks, > Chengchang Tang >
On 2024/1/2 16:32, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 03:44:29PM +0800, Chengchang Tang wrote: >> >> On 2023/12/30 1:21, Stephen Hemminger wrote: >>> On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 14:52:40 +0800 >>> Junxian Huang <huangjunxian6@hisilicon.com> wrote: >>> >>>> From: Chengchang Tang <tangchengchang@huawei.com> >>>> >>>> There will be a core dump when pretty is used as the JSON object >>>> hasn't been opened and closed properly. >>>> >>>> Before: >>>> $ rdma res show qp -jp -dd >>>> [ { >>>> "ifindex": 1, >>>> "ifname": "hns_1", >>>> "port": 1, >>>> "lqpn": 1, >>>> "type": "GSI", >>>> "state": "RTS", >>>> "sq-psn": 0, >>>> "comm": "ib_core" >>>> }, >>>> "drv_sq_wqe_cnt": 128, >>>> "drv_sq_max_gs": 2, >>>> "drv_rq_wqe_cnt": 512, >>>> "drv_rq_max_gs": 1, >>>> rdma: json_writer.c:130: jsonw_end: Assertion `self->depth > 0' failed. >>>> Aborted (core dumped) >>>> >>>> After: >>>> $ rdma res show qp -jp -dd >>>> [ { >>>> "ifindex": 2, >>>> "ifname": "hns_2", >>>> "port": 1, >>>> "lqpn": 1, >>>> "type": "GSI", >>>> "state": "RTS", >>>> "sq-psn": 0, >>>> "comm": "ib_core",{ >>>> "drv_sq_wqe_cnt": 128, >>>> "drv_sq_max_gs": 2, >>>> "drv_rq_wqe_cnt": 512, >>>> "drv_rq_max_gs": 1, >>>> "drv_ext_sge_sge_cnt": 256 >>>> } >>>> } ] >>>> >>>> Fixes: 331152752a97 ("rdma: print driver resource attributes") >>>> Signed-off-by: Chengchang Tang <tangchengchang@huawei.com> >>>> Signed-off-by: Junxian Huang <huangjunxian6@hisilicon.com> >>> This code in rdma seems to be miking json and newline functionality >>> which creates bug traps. >>> >>> Also the json should have same effective output in pretty and non-pretty mode. >>> It looks like since pretty mode add extra object layer, the nesting of {} would be >>> different. >>> >>> The conversion to json_print() was done but it isn't using same conventions >>> as ip or tc. >>> >>> The correct fix needs to go deeper and hit other things. >>> >> Hi, Stephen, >> >> The root cause of this issue is that close_json_object() is being called in >> newline_indent(), resulting in a mismatch >> of {}. >> >> When fixing this problem, I was unsure why a newline() is needed in pretty >> mode, so I simply kept this logic and >> solved the issue of open_json_object() and close_json_object() not matching. >> However, If the output of pretty mode >> and not-pretty mode should be the same, then this problem can be resolved by >> deleting this newline_indent(). > Stephen didn't say that output of pretty and not-pretty should be the > same, but he said that JSON logic should be the same. > > Thanks Hi, Leon, Thank you for your reply. But I'm not sure what you mean by JSON logic? I understand that pretty and not-pretty JSON should have the same content, but just difference display effects. Do you mean that they only need to have the same structure? Or, let's get back to this question. In the JSON format output, the newline() here seems unnecessary, because json_print() can solve the line break problems during printing. So I think the newline() here can be removed at least when outputting in JSON format. Thanks, Chengchang Tang > >> I believe the original developer may not have realized that >> close_json_object() is being called in newline(), which leads >> to this problem. To improve the code's readability, I would try to strip out >> close_json_obejct() from newline(). >> >> Thanks, >> Chengchang Tang >> > . >
On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 08:06:19PM +0800, Chengchang Tang wrote: > > > On 2024/1/2 16:32, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 03:44:29PM +0800, Chengchang Tang wrote: > > > > > > On 2023/12/30 1:21, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > > > On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 14:52:40 +0800 > > > > Junxian Huang <huangjunxian6@hisilicon.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > From: Chengchang Tang <tangchengchang@huawei.com> > > > > > > > > > > There will be a core dump when pretty is used as the JSON object > > > > > hasn't been opened and closed properly. > > > > > > > > > > Before: > > > > > $ rdma res show qp -jp -dd > > > > > [ { > > > > > "ifindex": 1, > > > > > "ifname": "hns_1", > > > > > "port": 1, > > > > > "lqpn": 1, > > > > > "type": "GSI", > > > > > "state": "RTS", > > > > > "sq-psn": 0, > > > > > "comm": "ib_core" > > > > > }, > > > > > "drv_sq_wqe_cnt": 128, > > > > > "drv_sq_max_gs": 2, > > > > > "drv_rq_wqe_cnt": 512, > > > > > "drv_rq_max_gs": 1, > > > > > rdma: json_writer.c:130: jsonw_end: Assertion `self->depth > 0' failed. > > > > > Aborted (core dumped) > > > > > > > > > > After: > > > > > $ rdma res show qp -jp -dd > > > > > [ { > > > > > "ifindex": 2, > > > > > "ifname": "hns_2", > > > > > "port": 1, > > > > > "lqpn": 1, > > > > > "type": "GSI", > > > > > "state": "RTS", > > > > > "sq-psn": 0, > > > > > "comm": "ib_core",{ > > > > > "drv_sq_wqe_cnt": 128, > > > > > "drv_sq_max_gs": 2, > > > > > "drv_rq_wqe_cnt": 512, > > > > > "drv_rq_max_gs": 1, > > > > > "drv_ext_sge_sge_cnt": 256 > > > > > } > > > > > } ] > > > > > > > > > > Fixes: 331152752a97 ("rdma: print driver resource attributes") > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chengchang Tang <tangchengchang@huawei.com> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Junxian Huang <huangjunxian6@hisilicon.com> > > > > This code in rdma seems to be miking json and newline functionality > > > > which creates bug traps. > > > > > > > > Also the json should have same effective output in pretty and non-pretty mode. > > > > It looks like since pretty mode add extra object layer, the nesting of {} would be > > > > different. > > > > > > > > The conversion to json_print() was done but it isn't using same conventions > > > > as ip or tc. > > > > > > > > The correct fix needs to go deeper and hit other things. > > > > > > > Hi, Stephen, > > > > > > The root cause of this issue is that close_json_object() is being called in > > > newline_indent(), resulting in a mismatch > > > of {}. > > > > > > When fixing this problem, I was unsure why a newline() is needed in pretty > > > mode, so I simply kept this logic and > > > solved the issue of open_json_object() and close_json_object() not matching. > > > However, If the output of pretty mode > > > and not-pretty mode should be the same, then this problem can be resolved by > > > deleting this newline_indent(). > > Stephen didn't say that output of pretty and not-pretty should be the > > same, but he said that JSON logic should be the same. > > > > Thanks > > Hi, Leon, > > Thank you for your reply. But I'm not sure what you mean by JSON logic? I > understand that > pretty and not-pretty JSON should have the same content, but just difference > display effects. > Do you mean that they only need to have the same structure? > > Or, let's get back to this question. In the JSON format output, the > newline() here seems > unnecessary, because json_print() can solve the line break problems during > printing. > So I think the newline() here can be removed at least when outputting in > JSON format. I think that your original patch is correct way to fix the mismatch as it is not related to pretty/non-pretty. Thanks > > Thanks, > Chengchang Tang > > > > > I believe the original developer may not have realized that > > > close_json_object() is being called in newline(), which leads > > > to this problem. To improve the code's readability, I would try to strip out > > > close_json_obejct() from newline(). > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Chengchang Tang > > > > > . > > > >
On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 14:21:06 +0200 Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 08:06:19PM +0800, Chengchang Tang wrote: > > > > > > On 2024/1/2 16:32, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 03:44:29PM +0800, Chengchang Tang wrote: > > > > > > > > On 2023/12/30 1:21, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 14:52:40 +0800 > > > > > Junxian Huang <huangjunxian6@hisilicon.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > From: Chengchang Tang <tangchengchang@huawei.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > There will be a core dump when pretty is used as the JSON object > > > > > > hasn't been opened and closed properly. > > > > > > > > > > > > Before: > > > > > > $ rdma res show qp -jp -dd > > > > > > [ { > > > > > > "ifindex": 1, > > > > > > "ifname": "hns_1", > > > > > > "port": 1, > > > > > > "lqpn": 1, > > > > > > "type": "GSI", > > > > > > "state": "RTS", > > > > > > "sq-psn": 0, > > > > > > "comm": "ib_core" > > > > > > }, > > > > > > "drv_sq_wqe_cnt": 128, > > > > > > "drv_sq_max_gs": 2, > > > > > > "drv_rq_wqe_cnt": 512, > > > > > > "drv_rq_max_gs": 1, > > > > > > rdma: json_writer.c:130: jsonw_end: Assertion `self->depth > 0' failed. > > > > > > Aborted (core dumped) > > > > > > > > > > > > After: > > > > > > $ rdma res show qp -jp -dd > > > > > > [ { > > > > > > "ifindex": 2, > > > > > > "ifname": "hns_2", > > > > > > "port": 1, > > > > > > "lqpn": 1, > > > > > > "type": "GSI", > > > > > > "state": "RTS", > > > > > > "sq-psn": 0, > > > > > > "comm": "ib_core",{ > > > > > > "drv_sq_wqe_cnt": 128, > > > > > > "drv_sq_max_gs": 2, > > > > > > "drv_rq_wqe_cnt": 512, > > > > > > "drv_rq_max_gs": 1, > > > > > > "drv_ext_sge_sge_cnt": 256 > > > > > > } > > > > > > } ] > > > > > > > > > > > > Fixes: 331152752a97 ("rdma: print driver resource attributes") > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chengchang Tang <tangchengchang@huawei.com> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Junxian Huang <huangjunxian6@hisilicon.com> > > > > > This code in rdma seems to be miking json and newline functionality > > > > > which creates bug traps. > > > > > > > > > > Also the json should have same effective output in pretty and non-pretty mode. > > > > > It looks like since pretty mode add extra object layer, the nesting of {} would be > > > > > different. > > > > > > > > > > The conversion to json_print() was done but it isn't using same conventions > > > > > as ip or tc. > > > > > > > > > > The correct fix needs to go deeper and hit other things. > > > > > > > > > Hi, Stephen, > > > > > > > > The root cause of this issue is that close_json_object() is being called in > > > > newline_indent(), resulting in a mismatch > > > > of {}. > > > > > > > > When fixing this problem, I was unsure why a newline() is needed in pretty > > > > mode, so I simply kept this logic and > > > > solved the issue of open_json_object() and close_json_object() not matching. > > > > However, If the output of pretty mode > > > > and not-pretty mode should be the same, then this problem can be resolved by > > > > deleting this newline_indent(). > > > Stephen didn't say that output of pretty and not-pretty should be the > > > same, but he said that JSON logic should be the same. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Hi, Leon, > > > > Thank you for your reply. But I'm not sure what you mean by JSON logic? I > > understand that > > pretty and not-pretty JSON should have the same content, but just difference > > display effects. > > Do you mean that they only need to have the same structure? > > > > Or, let's get back to this question. In the JSON format output, the > > newline() here seems > > unnecessary, because json_print() can solve the line break problems during > > printing. > > So I think the newline() here can be removed at least when outputting in > > JSON format. > > I think that your original patch is correct way to fix the mismatch as > it is not related to pretty/non-pretty. > > Thanks Part of the problem is the meaning of pretty mode is different in rdma than all of the other commands. The meaning of the flags should be the same across ip, devlink, tc, and rdma; therefore pretty should mean nothing unless json is enabled. I can do some of the rework here, but don't have any rdma hardware to test on.
On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 08:27:46AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 14:21:06 +0200 > Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 08:06:19PM +0800, Chengchang Tang wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 2024/1/2 16:32, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 03:44:29PM +0800, Chengchang Tang wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 2023/12/30 1:21, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 14:52:40 +0800 > > > > > > Junxian Huang <huangjunxian6@hisilicon.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Chengchang Tang <tangchengchang@huawei.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There will be a core dump when pretty is used as the JSON object > > > > > > > hasn't been opened and closed properly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Before: > > > > > > > $ rdma res show qp -jp -dd > > > > > > > [ { > > > > > > > "ifindex": 1, > > > > > > > "ifname": "hns_1", > > > > > > > "port": 1, > > > > > > > "lqpn": 1, > > > > > > > "type": "GSI", > > > > > > > "state": "RTS", > > > > > > > "sq-psn": 0, > > > > > > > "comm": "ib_core" > > > > > > > }, > > > > > > > "drv_sq_wqe_cnt": 128, > > > > > > > "drv_sq_max_gs": 2, > > > > > > > "drv_rq_wqe_cnt": 512, > > > > > > > "drv_rq_max_gs": 1, > > > > > > > rdma: json_writer.c:130: jsonw_end: Assertion `self->depth > 0' failed. > > > > > > > Aborted (core dumped) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After: > > > > > > > $ rdma res show qp -jp -dd > > > > > > > [ { > > > > > > > "ifindex": 2, > > > > > > > "ifname": "hns_2", > > > > > > > "port": 1, > > > > > > > "lqpn": 1, > > > > > > > "type": "GSI", > > > > > > > "state": "RTS", > > > > > > > "sq-psn": 0, > > > > > > > "comm": "ib_core",{ > > > > > > > "drv_sq_wqe_cnt": 128, > > > > > > > "drv_sq_max_gs": 2, > > > > > > > "drv_rq_wqe_cnt": 512, > > > > > > > "drv_rq_max_gs": 1, > > > > > > > "drv_ext_sge_sge_cnt": 256 > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > } ] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fixes: 331152752a97 ("rdma: print driver resource attributes") > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chengchang Tang <tangchengchang@huawei.com> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Junxian Huang <huangjunxian6@hisilicon.com> > > > > > > This code in rdma seems to be miking json and newline functionality > > > > > > which creates bug traps. > > > > > > > > > > > > Also the json should have same effective output in pretty and non-pretty mode. > > > > > > It looks like since pretty mode add extra object layer, the nesting of {} would be > > > > > > different. > > > > > > > > > > > > The conversion to json_print() was done but it isn't using same conventions > > > > > > as ip or tc. > > > > > > > > > > > > The correct fix needs to go deeper and hit other things. > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Stephen, > > > > > > > > > > The root cause of this issue is that close_json_object() is being called in > > > > > newline_indent(), resulting in a mismatch > > > > > of {}. > > > > > > > > > > When fixing this problem, I was unsure why a newline() is needed in pretty > > > > > mode, so I simply kept this logic and > > > > > solved the issue of open_json_object() and close_json_object() not matching. > > > > > However, If the output of pretty mode > > > > > and not-pretty mode should be the same, then this problem can be resolved by > > > > > deleting this newline_indent(). > > > > Stephen didn't say that output of pretty and not-pretty should be the > > > > same, but he said that JSON logic should be the same. > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Hi, Leon, > > > > > > Thank you for your reply. But I'm not sure what you mean by JSON logic? I > > > understand that > > > pretty and not-pretty JSON should have the same content, but just difference > > > display effects. > > > Do you mean that they only need to have the same structure? > > > > > > Or, let's get back to this question. In the JSON format output, the > > > newline() here seems > > > unnecessary, because json_print() can solve the line break problems during > > > printing. > > > So I think the newline() here can be removed at least when outputting in > > > JSON format. > > > > I think that your original patch is correct way to fix the mismatch as > > it is not related to pretty/non-pretty. > > > > Thanks > > Part of the problem is the meaning of pretty mode is different in rdma > than all of the other commands. The meaning of the flags should be the > same across ip, devlink, tc, and rdma; therefore pretty should mean > nothing unless json is enabled. I was very inspired by devlink when wrote rdmatool. It is supposed to behave the same. :) > > I can do some of the rework here, but don't have any rdma hardware > to test on. We will test it for you. Thanks
On 1/2/24 12:17 PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote: >> >> Part of the problem is the meaning of pretty mode is different in rdma >> than all of the other commands. The meaning of the flags should be the >> same across ip, devlink, tc, and rdma; therefore pretty should mean >> nothing unless json is enabled. > > I was very inspired by devlink when wrote rdmatool. It is supposed to > behave the same. :) You need better inspirations :-) It was a mistake to merge devlink source code into iproute2 without a commitment to bring it inline with other iproute2 commands.
diff --git a/rdma/utils.c b/rdma/utils.c index 09985069..dcf24337 100644 --- a/rdma/utils.c +++ b/rdma/utils.c @@ -926,7 +926,7 @@ void print_driver_table(struct rd *rd, struct nlattr *tb) return; if (rd->pretty_output) - newline_indent(rd); + open_json_object(NULL); /* * Driver attrs are tuples of {key, [print-type], value}. @@ -960,5 +960,9 @@ void print_driver_table(struct rd *rd, struct nlattr *tb) key = NULL; } } + + if (rd->pretty_output) + newline_indent(rd); + return; }