On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 11:17:46AM -0700, Tom Herbert wrote: > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 2:40 AM, Simon Horman <simon.hor...@netronome.com> > wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 01:37:55PM -0700, Tom Herbert wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 1:41 AM, Simon Horman <simon.hor...@netronome.com> > >> wrote: > >> > Move dissection of tunnel info from the flower classifier to the flow > >> > dissector where all other dissection occurs. This should not have any > >> > behavioural affect on other users of the flow dissector. > > > > ... > > > I feel that we are circling back the perennial issue of flower using the > > flow dissector in a somewhat broader/different way than many/all other > > users of the flow dissector. > > > Simon, > > It's more like __skb_flow_dissect is already an incredibly complex > function and because of that it's difficult to maintain. We need to > measure changes against that fact. For this patch, there is precisely > one user (cls_flower.c) and it's not at all clear to me if there will > be ever any more (e.g. for hashing we don't need tunnel info). IMO, it > should be just as easy and less convolution for everyone to have > flower call __skb_flow_dissect_tunnel_info directly and not call if > from __skb_flow_dissect.
Hi Tom, my original suggestion was just that, but Jiri indicated a strong preference for the approach taken by this patch. I think we need to widen the participants in this discussion.
