From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Graf Subject: Re: [RFC] batched tc to improve change throughput Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:19:40 +0100 Message-ID: <20050120171940.GJ26856@postel.suug.ch> References: <20050117165626.GE26856@postel.suug.ch> <1106002197.1046.19.camel@jzny.localdomain> <20050118134406.GR26856@postel.suug.ch> <1106058592.1035.95.camel@jzny.localdomain> <20050118145830.GS26856@postel.suug.ch> <1106144009.1047.989.camel@jzny.localdomain> <20050119165421.GB26856@postel.suug.ch> <1106232168.1041.125.camel@jzny.localdomain> <20050120153559.GG26856@postel.suug.ch> <20050120090628.29205d59@dxpl.pdx.osdl.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: jamal , Patrick McHardy , netdev@oss.sgi.com, Werner Almesberger Return-path: To: Stephen Hemminger Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050120090628.29205d59@dxpl.pdx.osdl.net> Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org * Stephen Hemminger <20050120090628.29205d59@dxpl.pdx.osdl.net> 2005-01-20 09:06 > On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:35:59 +0100 > Thomas Graf wrote: > > > * jamal <1106232168.1041.125.camel@jzny.localdomain> 2005-01-20 09:42 > > > I like it. Assuming we can have arbitrary hierachies; you just show one > > > level - but that may be just the example at hand. Given that should be > > > able to meet the layout requirements that Lennert alluded to earlier. > > > > It doesn't include any context code, the BNF: > > > > PARSER := TOPNODE* > > TOPNODE := NODELIST DESC LONG_DESC > > NODELIST := NODE* > > NODE := DESC [ NODELIST ] [ ARGUMENT ] [ ATTRS ] [ END_POINT ] > > END_POINT := possible end of command > > ATTRS := ATTR* > > ATTR := KEY [ VALUE ] > > ARGUMENT := VALUE [ DESC ] > > > > Not sure if this helps, I attached a complete module below. > > > > A couple additional suggestions. It would be great to get a useful API > to for 'tc' that is one step above actual low level netlink stuff. Planned. Trying to reuse an existing grammar but didn't found that suits well enough yet. > And it would be great to reuse some existing scripting language grammar > and parsing library infrastructure. Tried very hard to do so. I'd really like to build upon readline and its completion method but most parser generators are not made to get along with readline + completion. A c++ hack exist but doesn't really work with completion. That's why I wrote my own grammar definition thing.