Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 08:19:56PM CEST, xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com wrote: >On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 12:54 AM Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> wrote: >> >> Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 07:39:36PM CEST, xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com wrote: >> >On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 10:20 AM Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 12:47 AM Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > From: Jiri Pirko <j...@mellanox.com> >> >> > >> >> > In case a chain is empty and not explicitly created by a user, >> >> > such chain should not exist. The only exception is if there is >> >> > an action "goto chain" pointing to it. In that case, don't show the >> >> > chain in the dump. Track the chain references held by actions and >> >> > use them to find out if a chain should or should not be shown >> >> > in chain dump. >> >> > >> >> > Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <j...@mellanox.com> >> >> >> >> Looks reasonable to me. >> >> >> >> Acked-by: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com> >> > >> >Hold on... >> > >> >If you increase the refcnt for a zombie chain on NEWCHAIN path, >> >then it would become a non-zombie, this makes sense. However, >> >if the action_refcnt gets increased again when another action uses it, >> >it become a zombie again because refcnt==action_refcnt?? >> >> No. action always increases both refcnt and action_refcnt > >Hmm, then the name zombie is confusing, with your definition all >chains implicitly created by actions are zombies, unless touched >by user explicitly. Please find a better name.
Okay. Perhaps chain_inactive? > >Also, tcf_chain_get_by_act() could send out RTM_NEWCHAIN too, >which is confusing too as it is still a "zombie". Will check.
