[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpXEgVfc1kKf5DyJM+Co6OProFQES-V0dyiC4BKiFgAzhA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:44:42 -0700
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@...il.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 4/4] net/sched: act_mirred: Implement ingress actions
On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> And another quick grep shows that out of 142 drivers, only one [1] of
> them (incorrectly) checks netif_receive_skb() return value.
>
act_mirred is not a driver, apparently.
> Real question is more like : what is the impact of propagating an error
> at this point ?
_If_ we are going to just propagate the error like egress, then
the difference is m->tcf_action (PIPE or STOLEN) vs TC_ACT_SHOT.
And this error code is propagated from tcf_action_exec() up to
qdisc layer...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists