On 2019-05-08 1:07 p.m., Edward Cree wrote:
On 08/05/2019 15:02, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
The lazy thing most people have done is essentially assume that
there is a stat per filter rule...
I wouldnt call it the 'the right thing'
Yup, that's why I'm trying to not do that ;-)
Thank you ;->
Yes, the index at tc semantics level is per-action type.
So "mirred index 1" and "drop index 1" are not the same stats counter.
Ok, then that kills the design I used here that relied entirely on the
index to specify counters.
I guess instead I'll have to go with the approach Pablo suggested,
passing an array of struct flow_stats in the callback, thus using
the index into that array (which corresponds to the index in
f->exts->actions) to identify different counters.
Which means I will have to change all the existing drivers, which will
largely revert (from the drivers' perspective) the change when Pablo
took f->exts away from them — they will go back to calling something
that looks a lot like tcf_exts_stats_update().
However, that'll mean the API has in-tree users, so it might be
considered mergeable(?)
I would say yes, but post the patches and lets have the stakeholders
chime in.
Would it be simpler to just restore the f->exts?
cheers,
jamal
