[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1c0d0a0a-a74b-c887-d615-0f0c0d2e1b9a@solarflare.com>
Date: Wed, 8 May 2019 18:07:15 +0100
From: Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>
To: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
CC: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"Cong Wang" <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
"Anjali Singhai Jain" <anjali.singhai@...el.com>,
Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 2/3] flow_offload: restore ability to collect
separate stats per action
On 08/05/2019 15:02, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> The lazy thing most people have done is essentially assume that
> there is a stat per filter rule...
> I wouldnt call it the 'the right thing'
Yup, that's why I'm trying to not do that ;-)
> Yes, the index at tc semantics level is per-action type.
> So "mirred index 1" and "drop index 1" are not the same stats counter.
Ok, then that kills the design I used here that relied entirely on the
index to specify counters.
I guess instead I'll have to go with the approach Pablo suggested,
passing an array of struct flow_stats in the callback, thus using
the index into that array (which corresponds to the index in
f->exts->actions) to identify different counters.
Which means I will have to change all the existing drivers, which will
largely revert (from the drivers' perspective) the change when Pablo
took f->exts away from them — they will go back to calling something
that looks a lot like tcf_exts_stats_update().
However, that'll mean the API has in-tree users, so it might be
considered mergeable(?)
-Ed
Powered by blists - more mailing lists