[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20190207.100110.1557913033627638063.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2019 10:01:10 -0800 (PST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: eli@...lanox.com
Cc: jhs@...atatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, jiri@...nulli.us,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
simon.horman@...ronome.com, jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com,
dirk.vandermerwe@...ronome.com, francois.theron@...ronome.com,
quentin.monnet@...ronome.com, john.hurley@...ronome.com,
edwin.peer@...ronome.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: Change TCA_ACT_* to TCA_ID_* to
match that of TCA_ID_POLICE
From: Eli Cohen <eli@...lanox.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 09:45:49 +0200
> diff --git a/net/sched/act_simple.c b/net/sched/act_simple.c
> index 902957beceb3..d54cb608dbaf 100644
> --- a/net/sched/act_simple.c
> +++ b/net/sched/act_simple.c
> @@ -19,8 +19,6 @@
> #include <net/netlink.h>
> #include <net/pkt_sched.h>
>
> -#define TCA_ACT_SIMP 22
> -
> #include <linux/tc_act/tc_defact.h>
> #include <net/tc_act/tc_defact.h>
>
I would do this in patch #1.
Actually, because you didn't, after patch #1 there are two #defines
evaluated for this macro. One in pkt_cls.h and one here.
The only reason the compiler doesn't warn and complain is because the
definitions are identical.
Thank you.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists