[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150114090910.GA1869@nanopsycho.orion>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 10:09:10 +0100
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, jhs@...atatu.com, dborkman@...hat.com,
ast@...mgrid.com, hannes@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next v2] tc: add BPF based action
Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 08:36:33PM CET, davem@...emloft.net wrote:
>From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
>Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 17:09:38 +0100
>
>> + bpf_len = nla_get_u16(tb[TCA_ACT_BPF_OPS_LEN]);
>> + if (bpf_len > BPF_MAXINSNS || bpf_len == 0)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + bpf_size = bpf_len * sizeof(*bpf_ops);
>
>When I see variables named 'len' and 'size', I expect them to be
>in unit bytes.
Size is bytes, len is number of instructions. This is the same as in
net/sched/cls_bpf.c line 182. I follow the same naming for consistency
>
>I think it's clearer to call bpf_len something like "bpf_num_insns",
>or "bpf_num_ops", or something like that.
I understand. I will change it in net/sched/cls_bpf.c as well.
>
>Also, is the OPS_LEN attribute really necessary? Can't you just
>figure this out using nla_len() on the OPS attribute? Or is that not
>always accurate due to alignment?
I guess that you could just use nla_len. Again, I followed cls_bpf for
consistency purposes. It has TCA_BPF_OPS_LEN as well.
Thanks for review!
Jiri
--
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