From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jamal Hadi Salim Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 2/3] net: sched: remove AT INGRESS/EGRESS Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 18:43:07 -0400 Message-ID: <5556767B.2010700@mojatatu.com> References: <1431679850-31896-1-git-send-email-fw@strlen.de> <1431679850-31896-3-git-send-email-fw@strlen.de> <20150515162319.GA8234@Alexeis-MBP.westell.com> <20150515172115.GK6179@breakpoint.cc> <20150515200944.GA8527@Alexeis-MacBook-Pro.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net To: Alexei Starovoitov , Florian Westphal Return-path: Received: from mail-ig0-f181.google.com ([209.85.213.181]:38242 "EHLO mail-ig0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934194AbbEOWnP (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 May 2015 18:43:15 -0400 Received: by igcau1 with SMTP id au1so9092150igc.1 for ; Fri, 15 May 2015 15:43:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20150515200944.GA8527@Alexeis-MacBook-Pro.local> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 05/15/15 16:09, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 07:21:15PM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote: >> So, from ifb point of view it makes no difference, G_TC_FROM+AT_STACK >> causes skb to be dropped and IFB doesn't care about G_TC_AT() at all. > > yes. your change is technically correct. It's not causing ifb regression, > but it removes information in a way that will be very hard to add it later. > >> AT_STACK cannot even happen for the G_TC_AT case from looking at the >> code since dev_queue_xmit forces AT_EGRESS & rx sets AT_INGRESS. > > yes, if we only consider ingress and egress hooks. > I want to use this stack/ingress/egress indication with socket filters. > If we make stack==egress, I would need to refactor this code all over again. > It's not broken today. You're doing this aliasing only two squeeze a bit. > That's why I'm saying keep the stack/ingress/egress flag as-is. It's useful. > My point as well. Using ifb or mirred as examples is fine but they are not the only potential consumers/producers. Using examples as such is out of place when it is an architectural issue. So i would rather this be left alone. cheers, jamal