[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YlRKdX+uxdjuPslp@nanopsycho>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 17:34:13 +0200
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: Boris Sukholitko <boris.sukholitko@...adcom.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
"Gustavo A . R . Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
zhang kai <zhangkaiheb@....com>,
Yoshiki Komachi <komachi.yoshiki@...il.com>,
Ilya Lifshits <ilya.lifshits@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 5/5] Consider the number of vlan tags for vlan
filters
Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 03:31:00PM CEST, boris.sukholitko@...adcom.com wrote:
>Currently the existence of vlan filters is conditional on the vlan
>protocol being matched in the tc rule. I.e. the following rule:
>
>tc filter add dev eth1 ingress flower vlan_prio 5
>
>is illegal because we lack protocol 802.1q in the rule.
>
>Having the num_of_vlans filter configured removes this restriction. The
>following rule becomes ok:
>
>tc filter add dev eth1 ingress flower num_of_vlans 1 vlan_prio 5
>
>because we know that the packet is single tagged.
>From this patch description, I'm unable to tell what the patch is doing.
Tell the codebase what to do.
Also, in subject line of the patches, it is customary to put prefix
like: "net/sched: cls_flower:"
The the first glance, the patchset looks fine to me.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists