Tue, May 16, 2017 at 02:07:25PM CEST, [email protected] 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.
>
>> +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()?
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.
>
>cheers,
>jamal
