On 09/27/2016 10:07 AM, Shmulik Ladkani wrote:
Hi David,
On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 01:56:06 -0400 (EDT), da...@davemloft.net wrote:
The discussion on this patch has ventured off into what to do about
recursion.
But it unclear to me where this specific patch, and this series,
stands right now. Someone please clear this up for me.
Status:
- Series adds "ingress redirect/mirror" support
- Positive feedback for the feature
- So far no comments regarding code itself
- Questions raised regarding "recursion handling"
Expressed that existing mirred code (i.e egress redirect) is *already*
loop-unsafe (and also, some non-tc netdev constructs, as exampled by
others).
Discussion then wandered to "recursion handling".
Any reason why dev_forward_skb() is not preferred over direct
netif_receive_skb() you're using? It would, for example, implicitly
assure that pkt_type is always PACKET_HOST, etc.
Thanks,
Daniel
