Also, there seems to be a fundamental issue with the kernel-only OVS_ACTION_ATTR_SET_TO_MASKED that is not actually part of uAPI and so can have different values depending on how many actions the running kernel supports. But, I guess, it shouldn't be used that often, so maybe not a big problem.
Yes, OVS_ACTION_ATTR_SET_TO_MASKED is indeed problematic. I chose to only display "set_masked" and try our best to display the internal field to try to avoid the user the internal-only noise.
Looks like
OVS_ACTION_ATTR_DROP
is not supported.Also, there seems to be a fundamental issue with the kernel-only
OVS_ACTION_ATTR_SET_TO_MASKED
that is not actually part of uAPI and so can have different values depending on how many actions the running kernel supports. But, I guess, it shouldn't be used that often, so maybe not a big problem.