From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jamal Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: iproute2 action/policer question Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 08:07:28 -0400 Message-ID: <1245154048.4018.18.camel@dogo.mojatatu.com> References: <20090615111927.GA12316@ff.dom.local> <1245072728.3948.14.camel@dogo.mojatatu.com> <20090615214748.GA3857@ami.dom.local> Reply-To: hadi@cyberus.ca Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Pawe=C5=82?= Staszewski , Linux Network Development list , David Miller To: Jarek Poplawski Return-path: Received: from mail-qy0-f201.google.com ([209.85.221.201]:46410 "EHLO mail-qy0-f201.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755481AbZFPMIq (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Jun 2009 08:08:46 -0400 Received: by qyk39 with SMTP id 39so83327qyk.33 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2009 05:08:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20090615214748.GA3857@ami.dom.local> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 23:47 +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > > Jamal, after looking into act_gact or act_nat I guess we should update > drops here likewise, unless I miss something? It is ok for consistency. Nota bene: The drop is not really done by the policer; the policer mainly suggests that the packet be dropped; so the original idea (which is still valid) was some other action may decide to "undo" the drop. So feel free to add Acked-by: Jamal Hadi Salim cheers, jamal