[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <694f07e3-d5ad-1bc5-1cdb-ae814b1a12f7@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2022 11:32:03 +0800
From: shaozhengchao <shaozhengchao@...wei.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<jhs@...atatu.com>, <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>, <jiri@...nulli.us>,
<davem@...emloft.net>, <edumazet@...gle.com>, <pabeni@...hat.com>,
<weiyongjun1@...wei.com>, <yuehaibing@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next,0/3] cleanup of qdisc offload function
On 2022/8/16 11:10, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 10:04:20 +0800 Zhengchao Shao wrote:
>> Some qdiscs don't care return value of qdisc offload function, so make
>> function void.
>
> How many of these patches do you have? Is there a goal you're working
> towards? I don't think the pure return value removals are worth the
> noise. They don't even save LoC:
>
> 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
Hi Jakub.
Thank you for your reply. Recently I've been studying the kernel code
related to qdisc, and my goal is to understand how qdisc works. If the
code can be optimized, I do what I can to modify the optimization. Is it
more appropriate to add warning to the offload return value? I look
forward to your reply. Thank you.
Zhengchao Shao
Powered by blists - more mailing lists