On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 1:03 PM David Z. Dai <z...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2019-08-30 at 12:11 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 12:06 PM David Dai <z...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > - if (p->peak_present)
> > > + if ((police->params->rate.rate_bytes_ps >= (1ULL << 32))
> > > &&
> > > + nla_put_u64_64bit(skb, TCA_POLICE_RATE64,
> > > + police->params->rate.rate_bytes_ps,
> > > + __TCA_POLICE_MAX))
> >
> > I think the last parameter should be TCA_POLICE_PAD.
> Thanks for reviewing it!
> I have the impression that last parameter num value should be larger
> than the attribute num value in 2nd parameter (TC_POLICE_RATE64 in this
Why do you have this impression?
> case). This is the reason I changed the last parameter value to
> __TCA_POLICE_MAX after I moved the new attributes after TC_POLICE_PAD in
> pkt_cls.h header.
The prototype clearly shows it must be a padding attribute:
static inline int nla_put_u64_64bit(struct sk_buff *skb, int attrtype,
u64 value, int padattr)
