[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpXddH4qX2+-mY5gWLU19b6zjZzKV_RvQiyTT8sJ1sq-ow@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 13:11:56 -0800
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 3/8] net_sched: mirred: remove action when the
target device is gone
On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com> wrote:
> On 12/22/13 14:42, Cong Wang wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
>> wrote:
>
>
>> You know qdiscs and filters are removed too when the device
>> is gone, right? So isn't that also a policy you are talking about?
>>
>
> That is an easy optimization that made sense to make - we
> deleted the root of a graph. No need to spam the policy manager.
> What we are talking about is deleting a faulty node shared
> by multiple graphs and deleting the vertex but then leaving
> dangling edges around. Doesnt make sense.
> No action that is shared between two flows or devices is EVER
> going to be removed because you deleted a qdisc or a netdev.
NOTHING you talked about here is relevant to the policy or
mechanism you talked previously. Just correctness.
If removing an shared action is impossible, what about non-shared
ones? Actually for my _own_ use case, I even don't use nor care
about shared one...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists