[Swan-dev] expirimental : ipsec device/interface aka XFRMi
paul at nohats.ca
Wed Jan 22 13:47:47 UTC 2020
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020, Antony Antony wrote:
>>> Note 0x is necessary.
>> That is not how our parser works normally.
> I am not sure what your are implying here.
That we have numbers and set interpretations. A number without prefix is
never considered hex but only dec. Anything that takes a number as input
can take hex as input by prefacing it with 0x
> since the parser works I am inclined to keep it this way for now.
I prefer not having one option that has special digits handling and meaning
that other options do not have or use.
> I have a feeling we misunderstood the parser. Atleast I did, now I realizing
> there is way to get yes|no|<n> or yes|no|unique|<n> to work.
I still believe yes/no is not appropriate here. As for using numbers or
%unique, we already have that being used for the mark keyword(s) in the
parser. So that functionality is already there.
>> While you mention looking at the issue I found, you didn't answer about
>> my provided patch. Is it correct? Is it wrong? Is there a better way?
>> Will it be okay to use before merge?
> I don't know which patch your are talking about. please point me to swan-dev
> Some of the private e-mails you send didn't match any git refereces
> I have.
You privately asked to send the message publicly, so I did.
> May be the code moved on you. If you are re-sending one please make
> sure the diff to current xfrmi branch.
I just checked and the code has not changed. I will try later today or
tomorrow to confirm the patch is still needed but it seems very likely.
More information about the Swan-dev