Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 06:34:51PM CEST, xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> wrote:
>> Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 07:44:53PM CEST, xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 12:30 AM, Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> wrote:
>>>> -static int tcf_mirred_device(const struct tc_action *a, struct net *net,
>>>> - struct net_device **mirred_dev)
>>>> +static struct net_device *tcf_mirred_get_dev(const struct tc_action *a)
>>>> {
>>>> - int ifindex = tcf_mirred_ifindex(a);
>>>> + struct tcf_mirred *m = to_mirred(a);
>>>>
>>>> - *mirred_dev = __dev_get_by_index(net, ifindex);
>>>> - if (!*mirred_dev)
>>>> - return -EINVAL;
>>>> - return 0;
>>>> + return __dev_get_by_index(m->net, m->tcfm_ifindex);
>>>
>>>Hmm, why not just return m->tcfm_dev?
>>
>> I just follow the existing code. The change you suggest should be a
>> separate follow-up patch.
>
>Why?
I try to do small contained changes per patch. The resulting code is
doing the same thing as the original, therefore reducing possible bug
appearance.
>
>Your goal is "make tc_action_ops->get_dev return dev and avoid passing net",
>using m->tcfm_dev is simpler and could save you from adding a net pointer
>to struct tcf_mirred too.
