On 17-04-21 11:20 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Fri, 2017-04-21 at 11:12 -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
On 17-04-21 09:12 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:55:31PM CEST, j...@mojatatu.com wrote:
From: Jamal Hadi Salim
Jiri, there is a balance between extensibility and performanc
On Fri, 2017-04-21 at 11:12 -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> On 17-04-21 09:12 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> > Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:55:31PM CEST, j...@mojatatu.com wrote:
> >> From: Jamal Hadi Salim
>
> >> +#define TCA_FLAG_LARGE_DUMP_ON(1 << 0)
> >
> > This is u32 "flags" that could not
From: Jamal Hadi Salim
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 11:40:00 -0400
> Eric: Your are speaking in generalities and you starting premise is
> wrong.
I disagree.
If we never checked, it is our problem and our issue. Not that of
the user.
If you want to start checking and verifying new attribute bitmask
On 17-04-21 09:12 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:55:31PM CEST, j...@mojatatu.com wrote:
From: Jamal Hadi Salim
+#define TCA_FLAG_LARGE_DUMP_ON (1 << 0)
This is u32 "flags" that could not be extended for other use in future.
I'm missing the point. Also, you don't chec
On Fri, 2017-04-21 at 11:40 -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> On 17-04-21 11:20 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-04-21 at 11:12 -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> >> On 17-04-21 09:12 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >>> Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:55:31PM CEST, j...@mojatatu.com wrote:
> From: Jamal
Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:55:31PM CEST, j...@mojatatu.com wrote:
>From: Jamal Hadi Salim
>
>When you dump hundreds of thousands of actions, getting only 32 per
>dump batch even when the socket buffer and memory allocations allow
>is inefficient.
>
>With this change, the user will get as many as poss
