From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
Cc: cedric.jehasse@luminex.be, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v8 1/2] net/sched: cls_flower: remove unions from fl_flow_key
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2026 16:19:17 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260316161917.76f1ea87@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260316083447.GD1369074@kernel.org>
On Mon, 16 Mar 2026 08:34:47 +0000 Simon Horman wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2026 at 10:00:02AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Mar 2026 13:26:51 +0000 Simon Horman wrote:
> > > It seems to me that the use of a union is intentional here, as either IPv4
> > > or IPv6 addresses can be present in each case - never both. And that
> > > control.addr_type and enc_control.addr_type are intended to allow
> > > differentiation of the address type in use for each of these unions.
> >
> > My reading was that the initial author simply wanted to save space in
> > the struct.
> >
> > As the commit message explains this leads to complications in the logic
> > which sets the keys. The alternative is to complicate
> > FL_KEY_SET_IF_MASKED - doable, but given that the union feels like a
> > micro-optimization in the first place the simpler approach of separating
> > fields seems okay too? (TBH my mind also initially went down the
> > FL_KEY_SET_IF_MASKED rabbit hole but once I saw the simplicity of
> > Cedric's patch I changed my mind)
>
> Sure, now this has been put to me more than once I agree.
>
> But if we go this way, then can we also simplify some of the existing logic?
> As a follow-up?
Which logic do you have in mind? Sorry if I'm being slow.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-16 23:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-11 10:46 [PATCH net-next v8 0/2] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: Add partial support for TCAM entries Cedric Jehasse via B4 Relay
2026-03-11 10:46 ` [PATCH net-next v8 1/2] net/sched: cls_flower: remove unions from fl_flow_key Cedric Jehasse via B4 Relay
2026-03-13 13:26 ` Simon Horman
2026-03-13 14:31 ` Cedric Jehasse
2026-03-14 17:00 ` Jakub Kicinski
2026-03-16 8:34 ` Simon Horman
2026-03-16 23:19 ` Jakub Kicinski [this message]
2026-03-17 14:38 ` Simon Horman
2026-03-11 10:46 ` [PATCH net-next v8 2/2] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: Add partial support for TCAM entries Cedric Jehasse via B4 Relay
2026-03-17 9:50 ` [PATCH net-next v8 0/2] " patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260316161917.76f1ea87@kernel.org \
--to=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=andrew@lunn.ch \
--cc=cedric.jehasse@luminex.be \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=jhs@mojatatu.com \
--cc=jiri@resnulli.us \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=olteanv@gmail.com \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox