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()?
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(tcf_block_get);
+
+void tcf_block_put(struct tcf_block *block)
+{
+ if (!block)
+ return;
+ tcf_destroy_chain(block->p_filter_chain);
+ kfree(block);
+}
tcf_destroy_block()?
[..]
+ error = tcf_block_get(&flow->block, &flow->filter_list);
+ if (error) {
+ kfree(flow);
+ goto err_out;
+ }
+
flow->q = qdisc_create_dflt(sch->dev_queue, &pfifo_qdisc_ops, classid);
if (!flow->q)
flow->q = &noop_qdisc;
@@ -346,14 +353,13 @@ static void atm_tc_walk(struct Qdisc *sch, struct
qdisc_walker *walker)
}
}
-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()?
cheers,
jamal
