From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] vrf: Add VRF_F_BYPASS_RCV_NF flag to vrf device
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 10:00:06 -0700
Message-ID: <3595b09c-0000-0d67-e080-0341bdbf307e@gmail.com>
References: <1545896287-7282-1-git-send-email-wenxu@ucloud.cn>
 <2e98a763-664a-6a95-53ad-a150c3c199b8@gmail.com>
 <493e5cb3-224c-f83b-4fbd-caa1703bb379@ucloud.cn>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
To: wenxu <wenxu@ucloud.cn>, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-pl1-f196.google.com ([209.85.214.196]:40348 "EHLO
        mail-pl1-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1728266AbfAJRAK (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Thu, 10 Jan 2019 12:00:10 -0500
Received: by mail-pl1-f196.google.com with SMTP id u18so5441941plq.7
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 09:00:09 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <493e5cb3-224c-f83b-4fbd-caa1703bb379@ucloud.cn>
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On 1/10/19 8:21 AM, wenxu wrote:
> 
> How about the status of this patch? Should I resubmit it?
> 

I do not like the need for a flag when the VRF is created. If something
changes with the firewall rules, it means a user has to delete and
re-create the VRF which is really expensive.

It would be better to detect this on the fly - similar to how it detects
the default qdisc and avoids the recirculation on Tx when the qdisc is
the default.