From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jamal Subject: Re: [BUG] net_cls: Panic occured when net_cls subsystem use Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 09:17:10 -0400 Message-ID: <1243775830.3966.231.camel@dogo.mojatatu.com> References: <20090530114506.GA3166@ami.dom.local> <1243684594.3966.89.camel@dogo.mojatatu.com> <20090530120750.GB3166@ami.dom.local> <1243686683.3966.117.camel@dogo.mojatatu.com> <20090530124554.GC3166@ami.dom.local> <1243688628.3966.126.camel@dogo.mojatatu.com> <20090530132047.GD3166@ami.dom.local> <1243690297.3966.135.camel@dogo.mojatatu.com> <20090530140006.GE3166@ami.dom.local> <1243724933.3966.158.camel@dogo.mojatatu.com> <20090531075528.GA2756@ami.dom.local> Reply-To: hadi@cyberus.ca Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Minoru Usui , Minoru Usui , netdev@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Jarek Poplawski Return-path: Received: from mail-qy0-f130.google.com ([209.85.221.130]:45810 "EHLO mail-qy0-f130.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754008AbZEaNSK (ORCPT ); Sun, 31 May 2009 09:18:10 -0400 Received: by qyk36 with SMTP id 36so951602qyk.33 for ; Sun, 31 May 2009 06:18:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20090531075528.GA2756@ami.dom.local> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, 2009-05-31 at 09:55 +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > Sure, after fixing it properly we should get rid of unneeded checks. > > > Anyway, it's worked for other classifiers like this for some time... > > > > Would you agree that it is/was a bandaid? > > Or maybe you have some other fear that this may break something else and > > prefer the workaround instead? > > If somebody decided to do it this way instead of the "proper" fix then > it looks to me more like a bandaid "by design". I think your and my definition of "proper" are at odds here ;-> My logic says there's a causality effect and you always fix the cause in such a situation. Here's the anology of our conversation (some captured above) as i see it centred around a bug of leaky pipe which just messed up the carpet overnight in some room: handyman Jamal: fix the pipe so it doesnt leak. handyman Jarek: put a little bucket below the dripping spot handyman Jamal: fixing this pipe is cheap - it is on warranty too handyman Jarek: I fixed two other rooms by putting buckets handyman Jamal: Proper: fix the pipe - you dont need the buckets forever handyman Jarek: Proper fix is to put the bucket below any drip Of course i am exagerating to make a point on our logical approaches: leaking pipes dont quiet match software bugs i.e. a dripping pipe will have the short term sense of emergency of needing buckets but in this case the cost of the damage and time is the same if you put a bucket or fixed the pipe. > And, yes, I have some > fear we could break some strange configs, which could depend on this > wrong but working design. To continue our discussion handyman Jamal: What is your fear about fixing the pipe? handyman Jarek: Someone may have plants which depend on the drips; so if you fix it his plants wont get water anymore. I hope the above doesnt offend you - it is meant in good spirit. cheers, jamal