[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7c1efa70-bf63-a803-0321-610a963dcd9c@mojatatu.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2019 14:38:21 -0400
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To: Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com>
Cc: Roman Mashak <mrv@...atatu.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"xiyou.wangcong@...il.com" <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"mleitner@...hat.com" <mleitner@...hat.com>,
"dcaratti@...hat.com" <dcaratti@...hat.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 00/13] Control action percpu counters allocation
by netlink flag
On 2019-10-26 12:42 p.m., Vlad Buslov wrote:
>
> On Sat 26 Oct 2019 at 19:06, Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com> wrote:
> Hmm, yes, this looks quite redundant.
It's legit.
Two different code paths for two different objects
that can be configured independently or together.
Only other thing that does this is FIB/NH path.
> At the same time having basically
> same flags in two different spaces is ugly. Maybe correct approach would
> be not to add act API at all and only extend tcf_action_init_1() to be
> used from cls API? I don't see a use for act API at the moment because
> the only flag value (skip percpu allocation) is hardware offloads
> specific and such clients generally create action through cls new filter
> API. WDYT?
>
I am not sure if there is a gain. Your code path is
tcf_exts_validate()->tcf_action_init()->tcf_action_init_1()
Do you want to replicate the tcf_action_init() in
cls?
cheers,
jamal
Powered by blists - more mailing lists