[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20180104.104521.1842347831974087325.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2018 10:45:21 -0500 (EST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: jhs@...atatu.com
Cc: jiri@...nulli.us, kubakici@...pl, dsahern@...il.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, 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: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 07:41:54 -0500
> I agree with Jiri - if you consciously choose to share there should
> be no suprises with what filters get applied.
Wrong. It is not always the case that the two entities making changes
are coordinated explicitly.
Block operations shared across devices must therefore be _explicit_.
Any other behavior will result in surprised and unintended
consequences.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists