[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALx6S378z0FPWBdpC8-OKjqMwwSDO8BpxJmifvOUSMkEa8d0+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 11:04:23 -0700
From: Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
Tom Herbert <tom@...ntonium.net>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Rohit Seth <rohit@...ntonium.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 0/8] flow_dissector: Protocol specific flow
dissector offload
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 10:42 AM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>> From: Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
>> Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 08:48:55 -0700
>>
>>> The flow_dissector interface is not a uAPI.
>>
>> That's not true, insofar as cls_flower.c uses the flow_dissector
>> therefore if you change the flow_dissector in certain ways then
>> cls_flower.c might have it's behavior changed and that is in fact UAPI
>> facing.
>
> Then I would suggest adding another flag like FLOW_DISSECTOR_F_FLOWER
> and when anyone puts new code into flow_dissector they can wrap it
> with "if !(flags & FLOW_DISSECTOR_F_FLOWER)". If the flower uAPI is
> subsequently update then the conditional can be removed. This way
> flower can support maintain its APIs, but we can still still extend
> and improve flow_dissector for othersuse cases.
>
Actually, it would make more sense to have the converse so we don't
have to touch flower. I will add FLOW_DISSECTOR_F_NOT_FLOWER
> Tom
Powered by blists - more mailing lists