[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20180104.103348.607053530850783354.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2018 10:33:48 -0500 (EST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: jiri@...nulli.us
Cc: kubakici@...pl, dsahern@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
jhs@...atatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, mlxsw@...lanox.com,
andrew@...n.ch, vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com,
f.fainelli@...il.com, michael.chan@...adcom.com,
ganeshgr@...lsio.com, saeedm@...lanox.com, matanb@...lanox.com,
leonro@...lanox.com, idosch@...lanox.com,
simon.horman@...ronome.com, pieter.jansenvanvuuren@...ronome.com,
john.hurley@...ronome.com, alexander.h.duyck@...el.com,
ogerlitz@...lanox.com, john.fastabend@...il.com,
daniel@...earbox.net
Subject: Re: [patch net-next v4 00/10] net: sched: allow qdiscs to share
filter block instances
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 11:12:57 +0100
> No magic. ens8 and ens7 share the same block.
No Jiri, the fact that they share the same block _IS MAGIC_.
It is unexpected behavior to modify a rule and have it propagate
to devices not mentioned in the command line.
This is totally going to break things and upset people.
Saying it shows up in some tc dump command is not an argument
for this behavior being "expected". NO way.
I completely agree with David and others, you _MUST_ make an
explicit API and set of operations to make changes to rules
contained in shared blocks.
Period.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists