From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
Cc: cedric.jehasse@luminex.be, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v8 1/2] net/sched: cls_flower: remove unions from fl_flow_key
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2026 10:00:02 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260314100002.122c8c73@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260313132651.GX461701@kernel.org>
On Fri, 13 Mar 2026 13:26:51 +0000 Simon Horman wrote:
> It seems to me that the use of a union is intentional here, as either IPv4
> or IPv6 addresses can be present in each case - never both. And that
> control.addr_type and enc_control.addr_type are intended to allow
> differentiation of the address type in use for each of these unions.
My reading was that the initial author simply wanted to save space in
the struct.
As the commit message explains this leads to complications in the logic
which sets the keys. The alternative is to complicate
FL_KEY_SET_IF_MASKED - doable, but given that the union feels like a
micro-optimization in the first place the simpler approach of separating
fields seems okay too? (TBH my mind also initially went down the
FL_KEY_SET_IF_MASKED rabbit hole but once I saw the simplicity of
Cedric's patch I changed my mind)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-14 17:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-11 10:46 [PATCH net-next v8 0/2] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: Add partial support for TCAM entries Cedric Jehasse via B4 Relay
2026-03-11 10:46 ` [PATCH net-next v8 1/2] net/sched: cls_flower: remove unions from fl_flow_key Cedric Jehasse via B4 Relay
2026-03-13 13:26 ` Simon Horman
2026-03-13 14:31 ` Cedric Jehasse
2026-03-14 17:00 ` Jakub Kicinski [this message]
2026-03-16 8:34 ` Simon Horman
2026-03-16 23:19 ` Jakub Kicinski
2026-03-17 14:38 ` Simon Horman
2026-03-11 10:46 ` [PATCH net-next v8 2/2] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: Add partial support for TCAM entries Cedric Jehasse via B4 Relay
2026-03-17 9:50 ` [PATCH net-next v8 0/2] " patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260314100002.122c8c73@kernel.org \
--to=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=andrew@lunn.ch \
--cc=cedric.jehasse@luminex.be \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=jhs@mojatatu.com \
--cc=jiri@resnulli.us \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=olteanv@gmail.com \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox