From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/3] Implement delete for BPF LPM trie Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 14:29:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20170919.142935.72220924483937276.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20170919.135530.717500199880384307.davem@davemloft.net> <94373907-6cf5-22af-54e6-7625f31447e0@zonque.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: daniel@zonque.org, ast@fb.com, daniel@iogearbox.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: kraigatgoog@gmail.com Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([184.105.139.130]:46112 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751309AbdISV3h (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Sep 2017 17:29:37 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Craig Gallek Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 17:16:13 -0400 > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Daniel Mack wrote: >> On 09/19/2017 10:55 PM, David Miller wrote: >>> From: Craig Gallek >>> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 15:30:54 -0400 >>> >>>> This was previously left as a TODO. Add the implementation and >>>> extend the test to cover it. >>> >>> Series applied, thanks. >>> >> >> Hmm, I think these patches need some more discussion regarding the IM >> nodes handling, see the reply I sent an hour ago. Could you wait for >> that before pushing your tree? > > I can follow up with a patch to implement your suggestion. It's > really just an efficiency improvement, though, so I think it's ok to > handle independently. (Sorry, I haven't had a chance to play with the > implementation details yet). Sorry, I thought the core implementation had been agreed upon and the series was OK. All that was asked for were simplifications and/or optimization which could be done via follow-up patches. It's already pushed out to my tree, so I would need to do a real revert. I hope that won't be necessary.