From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jamal Hadi Salim Subject: Re: [patch net-next v2 02/10] net: sched: introduce tcf block infractructure Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 08:52:31 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20170515083857.3615-1-jiri@resnulli.us> <20170515083857.3615-3-jiri@resnulli.us> <33ea772b-d35b-ae08-4137-b63185c2f590@mojatatu.com> <20170516122326.GK1939@nanopsycho.orion> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com, dsa@cumulusnetworks.com, edumazet@google.com, stephen@networkplumber.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, alexander.h.duyck@intel.com, simon.horman@netronome.com, mlxsw@mellanox.com To: Jiri Pirko Return-path: Received: from mail-io0-f194.google.com ([209.85.223.194]:32891 "EHLO mail-io0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751219AbdEPMwe (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 May 2017 08:52:34 -0400 Received: by mail-io0-f194.google.com with SMTP id m4so14331639ioe.0 for ; Tue, 16 May 2017 05:52:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20170516122326.GK1939@nanopsycho.orion> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 17-05-16 08:23 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Tue, May 16, 2017 at 02:07:25PM CEST, jhs@mojatatu.com wrote: >> >> Jiri, >> >> I am sorry i am tied up elsewhere but will respond in chunks. >> >> On 17-05-15 04:38 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> >> >>> static inline void qdisc_cb_private_validate(const struct sk_buff *skb, int sz) >>> { >>> struct qdisc_skb_cb *qcb; >> >> >>> +int tcf_block_get(struct tcf_block **p_block, >>> + struct tcf_proto __rcu **p_filter_chain) >>> +{ >>> + struct tcf_block *block = kzalloc(sizeof(*block), GFP_KERNEL); >>> + >>> + if (!block) >>> + return -ENOMEM; >>> + block->p_filter_chain = p_filter_chain; >>> + *p_block = block; >>> + return 0; >>> +} >> >> tcf_block_get() sounds odd. tcf_block_create()? > > I used get/put because I plan to allow sharing of block between qdiscs > in future. Then there will be a refcount. > Ok, I guess I should read further into the patches.. >>> -static struct tcf_proto __rcu **atm_tc_find_tcf(struct Qdisc *sch, >>> - unsigned long cl) >>> +static struct tcf_block *atm_tc_tcf_block(struct Qdisc *sch, unsigned long cl) >> >> Any reason you removed the verb "find" from all these calls? >> eg above: better to have atm_tc_tcf_block_find()? > > Yeah, I was thinking about it. The thing is, the callback does not do > any lookup so "find" is not accurate. Also without "find" this is > shorter so I decided for this naming variant. > They do select some chain - at least that was the intent. Are you not planning to use this to pick a chain in a block? cheers, jamal