On 5/10/15 10:59 AM, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 10:45:42AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On 5/10/15 9:59 AM, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
The qdisc ingress filtering code is embedded into the core most likely because
at that time we had no RCU in place to define a hook. This is semantically
wrong as this violates the most basic rules of encapsulation.
Yet another attempt to sneak in 'qdisc_ingress_hook' to kill TC ?
Just add another hook for netfilter. Seriously. Enough of these
politics.
Absolutely not. I will not kill TC because people like jamal likes it,
and that's more than an argument to me to keep it there.
I have to ask you to stop harassing me all over with non-technical
comments: "evil", "funny", ...
Please, I never called you 'evil'. Though we're arguing, it's ok,
because we both want the best for the kernel. We just not on the same
page yet.
'funny' also doesn't apply to you.
If you feel offended, I'm sorry. I didn't mean it at all.
I'm getting quite enough of this, you stop that.
agree. let's articulate on exact technical means.
So, please, state clearly why you so much insisting of combining
existing tc and future netfilter hook into one that creates long
term head aches? What is wrong with two hooks?
Again, Daniel's patch accelerates super-critical ingress path even more.
Care to carefully read it first?
No, Daniel is *not* benchmarking the netif_received_core() with no
filtering at all.
sorry, not true. We did benchmark all combinations. Daniel posted
his, I'll send numbers from my box as well.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
