Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 07:40:53PM CET, john.fastab...@gmail.com wrote:
>On 16-02-27 08:28 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 8:24 PM, John Fastabend
>> <john.fastab...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 16-02-26 09:39 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 7:53 AM, John Fastabend
>>>> <john.fastab...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> diff --git a/include/net/pkt_cls.h b/include/net/pkt_cls.h
>>>>> index 2121df5..e64d20b 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/net/pkt_cls.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/net/pkt_cls.h
>>>>> @@ -392,4 +392,9 @@ struct tc_cls_u32_offload {
>>>>> };
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> +static inline bool tc_should_offload(struct net_device *dev)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + return dev->netdev_ops->ndo_setup_tc;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> These should be protected by CONFIG_NET_CLS_U32, no?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Its not necessary it is a completely general function and I only
>>> lifted it out of cls_u32 so that the cls_flower classifier could
>>> also use it.
>>>
>>> I don't see the need off-hand to have it wrapped in an ORd ifdef
>>> statement where its (CONFIG_NET_CLS_U32 | CONFIG_NET_CLS_X ...).
>>> Any particular reason you were thnking it should be wrapped in ifdefs?
>>>
>>
>> Not a big deal.
>>
>> I just feel these don't need to compile when I have CONFIG_NET_CLS_U32=n.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>
>Well because this is 'static inline' gcc should just remove it
>if it is not used. Assuming non-ancient gcc and normal compile
>flags, e.g. you are not including -fkeep-inline-functions or
>something.
>
>So just to keep it readable I would prefer to just leave it
>as is.
Definitelly. cls_flower will use it in very near future. Making it
dependent on CONFIG_NET_CLS_U32 makes 0 sense to me.
