On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 11:13:26PM +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> 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 feel like that's also kind of vague.  Available where, exactly?

> 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,

I'm thinking of it as "best effort" for the rule as a whole: we
attempt it for every component port.

> once.

That's no longer true after 7/14: we'll call fwd_listen_sync() every
second from fwd_scan_ports_timer().  That's intended for the FWD_SCAN
rules, but it also means we'll re-attempt listens for any FWD_WEAK
ports we previously failed on.

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

I'll keep it as-is for now, but I'm open to different wordings if a
clearly better one occurs to one of us.

-- 
David Gibson (he or they)	| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you, not the other way
				| around.
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson