Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 10:08:57AM CEST, simon.hor...@netronome.com wrote: >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.
I like the __skb_flow_dissect to be the function to call and it will do the job according to the configuration. I don't like to split in multiple calls. Does not make sense in the most of the cases as the dissection state would have to be carried in between calls.
