[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4498612b-a8ad-7e4a-048b-483615a87a11@mojatatu.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2016 03:01:42 -0400
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc: Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@...il.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 4/4] net/sched: act_mirred: Implement ingress
actions
On 16-10-06 08:49 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com> wrote:
>> I dont believe we need to bother with the return code in this case.
>
> Why?
>
> For a quick example, STOLEN vs. SHOT:
>
> result = tc_classify(skb, filter, &res, false);
> if (result >= 0) {
> #ifdef CONFIG_NET_CLS_ACT
> switch (result) {
> case TC_ACT_STOLEN:
> case TC_ACT_QUEUED:
> *qerr = NET_XMIT_SUCCESS | __NET_XMIT_STOLEN;
> case TC_ACT_SHOT:
> return 0;
> }
> #endif
>
> Note, *qerr is the return value to ->enqueue().
>
You are right. I take back what i said.
We at minimal need consistency; so whether going to ingress or egress
we should at least increment the overlimit stats in case of non-success
code. Shmulik please fix up with checks on return code.
cheers,
jamal
Powered by blists - more mailing lists