[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM0EoMm1qr+GAehEZzmmd5TZL5Ases-T=q0KZYTF49DOXdU6tw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2023 09:17:57 -0400
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <mleitner@...hat.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, deb.chatterjee@...el.com, anjali.singhai@...el.com,
namrata.limaye@...el.com, tom@...anda.io, p4tc-discussions@...devconf.info,
Mahesh.Shirshyad@....com, Vipin.Jain@....com, tomasz.osinski@...el.com,
jiri@...nulli.us, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net,
edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, vladbu@...dia.com,
simon.horman@...igine.com, khalidm@...dia.com, toke@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 net-next 07/28] net/sched: act_api: add struct
p4tc_action_ops as a parameter to lookup callback
On Fri, Jun 2, 2023 at 3:43 PM Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
<mleitner@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 07:02:11AM -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> > @@ -115,7 +115,8 @@ struct tc_action_ops {
> > struct tcf_result *); /* called under RCU BH lock*/
> > int (*dump)(struct sk_buff *, struct tc_action *, int, int);
> > void (*cleanup)(struct tc_action *);
> > - int (*lookup)(struct net *net, struct tc_action **a, u32 index);
> > + int (*lookup)(struct net *net, const struct tc_action_ops *ops,
> > + struct tc_action **a, u32 index);
> > int (*init)(struct net *net, struct nlattr *nla,
> > struct nlattr *est, struct tc_action **act,
> > struct tcf_proto *tp,
> > diff --git a/net/sched/act_api.c b/net/sched/act_api.c
> > index ba0315e686bf..788127329d96 100644
> > --- a/net/sched/act_api.c
> > +++ b/net/sched/act_api.c
> > @@ -728,7 +728,7 @@ int __tcf_idr_search(struct net *net, const struct tc_action_ops *ops,
> > struct tc_action_net *tn = net_generic(net, ops->net_id);
> >
> > if (unlikely(ops->lookup))
> > - return ops->lookup(net, a, index);
> > + return ops->lookup(net, ops, a, index);
>
> Interesting. I could swear that this patch would break the build if
> only up to this patch was applied (like in a git bisect), but then,
> currently no action is defining this method. :D
>
We test every patch individually for compile for git bisect reasons,
so it would be hard to find one that escapes our process ;->
cheers,
jamal
Powered by blists - more mailing lists