[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20181120.091640.1759508282843765424.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 09:16:40 -0800 (PST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: jiri@...nulli.us
Cc: pablo@...filter.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
thomas.lendacky@....com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
ariel.elior@...ium.com, michael.chan@...adcom.com,
santosh@...lsio.com, madalin.bucur@....com,
yisen.zhuang@...wei.com, salil.mehta@...wei.com,
jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, tariqt@...lanox.com,
saeedm@...lanox.com, jiri@...lanox.com, idosch@...lanox.com,
jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com, peppe.cavallaro@...com,
grygorii.strashko@...com, andrew@...n.ch,
vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com, alexandre.torgue@...com,
joabreu@...opsys.com, linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com,
ganeshgr@...lsio.com, ogerlitz@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/12 net-next,v2] add flow_rule infrastructure
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 08:39:12 +0100
> If later on the netfilter code will use it, through another
> ndo/notifier/whatever, that is side a nice side-effect in my
> opinion.
Netfilter HW offloading is the main motivation of these changes.
You can try to spin it any way you like, but I think this is pretty
clear.
Would the author of these changes be even be remotely interested in
this "cleanup" in areas of code he has never been involved in if that
were not the case?
I think it is very dishonest to portray the situation differently.
Thank you.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists