[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250411131230.Wm6eVlkb@linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2025 15:12:30 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Davide Caratti <dcaratti@...hat.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-devel@...ts.linux.dev,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 13/18] net/sched: act_mirred: Move the recursion
counter struct netdev_xmit.
On 2025-03-21 18:14:50 [+0100], Davide Caratti wrote:
> hi,
Hi,
> > index 5b38143659249..8d8cfac6cc6af 100644
> > --- a/net/sched/act_mirred.c
> > +++ b/net/sched/act_mirred.c
> > @@ -30,7 +30,29 @@ static LIST_HEAD(mirred_list);
…
> > +#else
> > +static u8 tcf_mirred_nest_level_inc_return(void)
> > +{
> > + return current->net_xmit.nf_dup_skb_recursion++;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void tcf_mirred_nest_level_dec(void)
> > +{
> > + current->net_xmit.nf_dup_skb_recursion--;
> > +}
> > +#endif
>
> sorry for reviewing this late - but shouldn't we use sched_mirred_nest
> instead of nf_dup_skb_recursion in case CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT is set?
you are correct, thank you.
> thanks,
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists