From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paolo Abeni Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/5] tc/act: user space can't use TC_ACT_REDIRECT directly Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 18:29:02 +0200 Message-ID: References: <82c5852909788fef3c7b5c29d6ad8c90b60c7170.1532437050.git.pabeni@redhat.com> <20180725115652.GD2164@nanopsycho> <5d38822b635a18b102810a14883e65479f3841ab.camel@redhat.com> <20180725130330.GJ2164@nanopsycho> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jamal Hadi Salim , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Cong Wang , Daniel Borkmann , Marcelo Ricardo Leitner , Eyal Birger , "David S. Miller" To: Jiri Pirko Return-path: Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:50060 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728542AbeGYRl3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jul 2018 13:41:29 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 2018-07-25 at 17:48 +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote: > On Wed, 2018-07-25 at 15:03 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: > > Well it was obviously wrong to expose TC_ACT_REDIRECT to uapi and it > > really has no meaning for anyone to use it throughout its whole history. > > I would vote for "fail", yet I admit that I am usually alone in opinion > > about similar uapi changes :) > > Since even Jamal suggested the same, unless someone else voice some > opposition soon, in v4 I'll opt for rejecting actions using > TC_ACT_REDIRECT. Thinking again about it, I'm going to drop this patch from this series. Since v2 is not strictly needed anymore and actually quite unrelated. Thanks and sorry for the reiterated noise ;) Paolo