From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 4/5] net/tc: introduce TC_ACT_REINJECT. Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 14:09:00 -0300 Message-ID: <20180725170859.GC20383@localhost.localdomain> References: <3c20787be0fd5d64728ffed46ae0a7dff10d7e05.1532437050.git.pabeni@redhat.com> <6a9fd3c8f861c203c7e12a2a2e477796c5e093d5.camel@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jamal Hadi Salim , Paolo Abeni , Linux Kernel Network Developers , Jiri Pirko , Daniel Borkmann , Eyal Birger , David Miller To: Cong Wang Return-path: Received: from mail-qt0-f195.google.com ([209.85.216.195]:42634 "EHLO mail-qt0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728644AbeGYSVj (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jul 2018 14:21:39 -0400 Received: by mail-qt0-f195.google.com with SMTP id z8-v6so8350656qto.9 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2018 10:09:04 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 09:48:16AM -0700, Cong Wang wrote: > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 5:27 AM Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > > > > Those changes were there from the beginning (above patch did > > not introduce them). > > IIRC, the reason was to distinguish between policy intended > > drops and drops because of errors. > > There must be a limit for "overlimit" to make sense. There is > no limit in mirred action's context, probably there is only > such a limit in act_police. So, all rest should not touch overlimit. +1