On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 5:52 AM Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
>
> On 25/07/18 01:09 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 09:48:16AM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 5:27 AM Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Those changes were there from the beginning
On 25/07/18 01:09 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 09:48:16AM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 5:27 AM Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
Those changes were there from the beginning (above patch did
not introduce them).
IIRC, the reason was to distinguish
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 09:48:16AM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 5:27 AM Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> >
> > Those changes were there from the beginning (above patch did
> > not introduce them).
> > IIRC, the reason was to distinguish between policy intended
> > drops and drops
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 5:27 AM Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
>
> Those changes were there from the beginning (above patch did
> not introduce them).
> IIRC, the reason was to distinguish between policy intended
> drops and drops because of errors.
There must be a limit for "overlimit" to make sense.
On 25/07/18 10:24 AM, Paolo Abeni wrote:
On Wed, 2018-07-25 at 08:27 -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
Those changes were there from the beginning (above patch did
not introduce them).
IIRC, the reason was to distinguish between policy intended
drops and drops because of errors.
On Wed, 2018-07-25 at 08:27 -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> On 25/07/18 04:29 AM, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > On Tue, 2018-07-24 at 13:50 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
>
> [..]
> > > > I fail to understand why overlimit is increased in your case
> > > > here. I guess you want to increase 'drops' instead.
>
Hi,
On Wed, 2018-07-25 at 08:16 -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> +Cc Shmulik
>
> Paolo - please also run the tdc tests (and add anymore if you
> feel they dont do coverage to your changes)
I run successfully tdc tests on a patched before posting. I plan to
rerun them before posting the v4.
>
Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 02:16:12PM CEST, j...@mojatatu.com wrote:
[...]
>> diff --git a/include/net/pkt_cls.h b/include/net/pkt_cls.h
>> index 2081e4219f81..36ccfe2a303a 100644
>> --- a/include/net/pkt_cls.h
>> +++ b/include/net/pkt_cls.h
>> @@ -7,6 +7,9 @@
>> #include
>> #include
>> +/* TC
Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:06:42PM CEST, pab...@redhat.com wrote:
>This is similar TC_ACT_REDIRECT, but with a slightly different
>semantic:
>- on ingress the mirred skbs are passed to the target device
>network stack without any additional check not scrubbing.
>- the rcu-protected stats provided via
On 25/07/18 04:29 AM, Paolo Abeni wrote:
On Tue, 2018-07-24 at 13:50 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
[..]
I fail to understand why overlimit is increased in your case
here. I guess you want to increase 'drops' instead.
Hmm, actually the current mirred code increases overlimit too.
But I still don't
+Cc Shmulik
Paolo - please also run the tdc tests (and add anymore if you
feel they dont do coverage to your changes)
On 24/07/18 04:06 PM, Paolo Abeni wrote:
This is similar TC_ACT_REDIRECT, but with a slightly different
semantic:
- on ingress the mirred skbs are passed to the target device
On Tue, 2018-07-24 at 13:50 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 1:38 PM Cong Wang wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 1:07 PM Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > > +static inline void skb_tc_reinject(struct sk_buff *skb, struct
> > > tcf_result *res)
> > > +{
> > > + struct
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 1:38 PM Cong Wang wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 1:07 PM Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > +static inline void skb_tc_reinject(struct sk_buff *skb, struct tcf_result
> > *res)
> > +{
> > + struct gnet_stats_queue *stats = res->qstats;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > +
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 1:07 PM Paolo Abeni wrote:
> +static inline void skb_tc_reinject(struct sk_buff *skb, struct tcf_result
> *res)
> +{
> + struct gnet_stats_queue *stats = res->qstats;
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (res->ingress)
> + ret = netif_receive_skb(skb);
14 matches
Mail list logo
