From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Florian Westphal Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 4/5] net: sched: remove AT INGRESS/EGRESS Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 13:11:32 +0200 Message-ID: <20150505111132.GD17061@breakpoint.cc> References: <1430765318-13788-1-git-send-email-fw@strlen.de> <1430765318-13788-5-git-send-email-fw@strlen.de> <5548A446.90901@iogearbox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Florian Westphal , netdev@vger.kernel.org, jhs@mojatatu.com, alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com To: Daniel Borkmann Return-path: Received: from Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc ([80.244.247.6]:48558 "EHLO Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753042AbbEELLe (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 May 2015 07:11:34 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5548A446.90901@iogearbox.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 05/04/2015 08:48 PM, Florian Westphal wrote: > >use single marker to propagate location. > >tc_at_ingress 1: ingress, 0 is egress. > > > >The new flag is set/unset in sch_ingress instead of the core. > >We will also no longer set skb->tc_verd to AT_EGRESS in the xmit > >handler. > > > >Signed-off-by: Florian Westphal > ... > >diff --git a/include/linux/skbuff.h b/include/linux/skbuff.h > >index 911d84e..d794077 100644 > >--- a/include/linux/skbuff.h > >+++ b/include/linux/skbuff.h > >@@ -488,6 +488,7 @@ static inline u32 skb_mstamp_us_delta(const struct skb_mstamp *t1, > > * @queue_mapping: Queue mapping for multiqueue devices > > * @xmit_more: More SKBs are pending for this queue > > * @tc_from_ingress: skb is processed during rx, not transmit > >+ * @tc_at_ingress: skb is processed during rx, not transmit > > Minor nit: > > I think both comments needs to be a bit more clear. I.e. tc_at_ingress > tells the *current* location whether we are invoked from ingress or > egress. And, tc_from_ingress explains the *previous* location, whether > the skbs has been mirred from ingress path or egress path. Agree, the reason is that I tried to go with single tc_ingress:1 but it turned out to be not as trivial as I thought. I'll fix it up in v2, I'll wait a bit more though to give others a chance to comment. Thanks for reviewing!