[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1da092c0-3018-7107-78d3-4496098825a3@solarflare.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2020 16:29:32 +0000
From: Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>
To: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
CC: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <davem@...emloft.net>, <kuba@...nel.org>,
<saeedm@...lanox.com>, <leon@...nel.org>,
<michael.chan@...adcom.com>, <vishal@...lsio.com>,
<jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>, <idosch@...lanox.com>,
<aelior@...vell.com>, <peppe.cavallaro@...com>,
<alexandre.torgue@...com>, <jhs@...atatu.com>,
<xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>, <mlxsw@...lanox.com>,
<netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch net-next v2 01/12] flow_offload: Introduce offload of HW
stats type
On 02/03/2020 13:20, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> 2) explicit counter action, in this case the user specifies explicitly
> that it needs a counter in a given position of the rule. This
> counter might come before or after the actual action.
But the existing API can already do this, with a gact pipe. Plus, Jiri's
new API will allow specifying a counter on any action (rather than only,
implicitly, those which have .stats_update()) should that prove to be
necessary.
I really think the 'explicit counter action' is a solution in search of a
problem, let's not add random orthogonality violations. (Equally if the
counter action had been there first, I'd be against adding counters to
the other actions.)
-ed
Powered by blists - more mailing lists