On 17-05-16 08:23 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
Tue, May 16, 2017 at 02:07:25PM CEST, j...@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
