Re: [PATCH v3 02/14] conf, fwd: Keep a table of our port forwarding configuration

[Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 16:12:02 +1100
David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 12:26:10AM +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> >
> > On Thu,  8 Jan 2026 13:29:36 +1100
> > David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> >   
> > > +/**
> > > + * fwd_rules_print() - Print forwarding rules for debugging
> > > + * @fwd:	Table to print
> > > + */
> > > +void fwd_rules_print(const struct fwd_ports *fwd)
> > > +{
> > > +	unsigned i;
> > > +
> > > +	for (i = 0; i < fwd->count; i++) {
> > > +		const struct fwd_rule *rule = &fwd->rules[i];
> > > +		const char *weak = rule->flags & FWD_WEAK ? " WEAK" : "";  
> > 
> > Should we print " might fail" or " can fail" instead of " WEAK"? This
> > is for users.  
> 
> Good point.  THough I'm not sure "might fail" or "can fail" is
> terribly clear in context either.  I've gone with " (best effort)" for
> now.

Or maybe " (if available)"? I always find "best effort" a bit ambiguous
because, well, it's a pretty good effort, being it's the best one, but
it actually means we'll just give it a quick try, once.

No strong preference though, "best effort" is rather idiomatic anyway.

-- 
Stefano