[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1cd8ce66-cb27-b9e8-c8a6-da63c8226aae@mojatatu.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 09:02:58 -0400
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To: Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com>, Roman Mashak <mrv@...atatu.com>
Cc: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <mleitner@...hat.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"xiyou.wangcong@...il.com" <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
"jiri@...nulli.us" <jiri@...nulli.us>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"dcaratti@...hat.com" <dcaratti@...hat.com>,
"pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 00/13] Control action percpu counters allocation
by netlink flag
I shouldve read the thread backward. My earlier email was asking
similar question to Roman.
On 2019-10-23 2:38 a.m., Vlad Buslov wrote:
>
> On Tue 22 Oct 2019 at 21:17, Roman Mashak <mrv@...atatu.com> wrote:
> Hi Roman,
>
> I considered it, but didn't find good way to implement my change with
> TCA_ROOT_FLAGS. I needed some flags to be per-action for following
> reasons:
>
> 1. Not all actions support the flag (only implemented for hw offloaded
> actions).
>
>
> 2. TCA_ROOT_FLAGS is act API specific and I need this to work when
> actions are created when actions are created with filters through cls
> API. I guess I could have changed tcf_action_init_1() to require
> having TCA_ROOT_FLAGS before actions attribute and then pass obtained
> value to act_ops->init() as additional argument, but it sounds more
> complex and ugly.
I really shouldve read the thread backwards;->
The question is if this uglier than introducing a new TLV for every
action.
cheers,
jamal
Powered by blists - more mailing lists