[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d7c741e5-b59d-d71f-2e91-c2e67980f822@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 10:44:41 -0700
From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, 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, jakub.kicinski@...ronome.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 v8 08/14] net: sched: add rt netlink message type
for block get
On 1/15/18 10:27 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 06:21:44PM CET, dsahern@...il.com wrote:
>> On 1/15/18 10:08 AM, David Ahern wrote:
>>> On 1/15/18 10:03 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>>> Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 05:56:31PM CET, dsahern@...il.com wrote:
>>>>> On 1/12/18 8:46 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>>>>> From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why can't this be done with RTM_GETQDISC?
>>>>
>>>> I don't follow. Could you please describe a bit more what do you think?
>>>
>>> Why are you adding RTM_{NEW,GET,DEL}BLOCK? Can't you get the same
>>> information using RTM_GETQDISC and updating it to check for the
>>> 'tcm_ifindex == TCM_IFINDEX_MAGIC_BLOCK' path
>
> I might, but it bould be an ugly hack. I would use cmd that is used to
> manipulate qdisc to some entirely different purpose. That does not make
> any sense to me :(
>
>
>
>>>
>>
>> The above question is because a user specifies a shared block in a
>> 'qdisc add'.
>
> Qdisc and block is a different entity
>
>
>>
>> Alternatively, what about RTM_GETTFILTER? You already update
>> tc_ctl_tfilter to check for TCM_IFINDEX_MAGIC_BLOCK
>
> The object is still filter! Only the handle is different. You cannot
> compare that, sorry.
>
>
>>
>> My main question is why can't existing RTM_ commands be used?
What I am struggling with is the idea that you need a new set of RTM_
commands to see if a block exists or to get notifications of a change to
a block, but you don't need that API to create or modify the blocks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists