Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 05:37:15PM CEST, j...@mojatatu.com wrote:
>On 17-04-19 09:13 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 03:03:59PM CEST, j...@mojatatu.com wrote:
>> > On 17-04-19 08:36 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> > > Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 01:57:29PM CEST, j...@mojatatu.com wrote:
>> > > > From: Jamal Hadi Salim <j...@mojatatu.com>
>> >
>> > > > include/uapi/linux/rtnetlink.h | 21 +++++++++++++++++++--
>> > > > net/sched/act_api.c | 43
>> > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
>> > > > 3 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
>> > > > +#define TCAA_MAX (__TCAA_MAX - 1)
>> > > > #define TA_RTA(r) ((struct rtattr*)(((char*)(r)) +
>> > > > NLMSG_ALIGN(sizeof(struct tcamsg))))
>> > > > #define TA_PAYLOAD(n) NLMSG_PAYLOAD(n,sizeof(struct tcamsg))
>> > > > -#define TCA_ACT_TAB 1 /* attr type must be >=1 */
>> > > > -#define TCAA_MAX 1
>> > > > +#define TCA_ACT_TAB TCAA_ACT_TAB
>> > >
>> > > This is mess. What does "TCAA" stand for?
>> >
>> > TC Actions Attributes. What would you call it? I could have
>> > called it TCA_ROOT etc. But maybe a comment to just call it
>> > TC Actions Attributes would be enough?
>>
>> TCA_DUMP_X
>>
>> it is only for dumping. Naming it "attribute" seems weird. Same as if
>> you have: int variable_something;
>>
>
>Jiri, this is not just for dumping. We are describing high level
>attributes for tc actions.
This is already present:
enum {
TCA_ACT_UNSPEC,
TCA_ACT_KIND,
TCA_ACT_OPTIONS,
TCA_ACT_INDEX,
TCA_ACT_STATS,
TCA_ACT_PAD,
TCA_ACT_COOKIE,
__TCA_ACT_MAX
};
This is nested inside the dump message (TCAA_MAX, TCA_ACT_TAB)
Looks like you are mixing these 2.
>
>>
>> >
>> > > I suggest some more meaningful naming of the enum items and define
>> > > TCA_ACT_TAB and TCAA_MAX to the new values in order to maintain UAPI
>> >
>> >
>> > Thats what the above does (for UAPI) maintainance, no?
>>
>> It does it for TCA_ACT_TAB. We need to do it for both TCA_ACT_TAB and
>> TCAA_MAX
>>
>
>TCAA_XXX is the namespace selected. You dont like that name and
>adding DUMP doesnt make sense to me. How about TCA_ACT_ROOT?
>
>> >
>> > > Also, please put X_MAX = __X_MAX - 1 into enum
>> >
>> > That is diverting from the norm which defines it outside
>> > of the enum. A good reason could be: You, Jiri, plan to go and
>> > cleanup all the netlink stuff which uses this style.
>> > Or you think we should start a trend which leads us
>> > to a new clean style.
>>
>> I would start now. I can take of the follow-up patch to change the rest.
>>
>
>It is a _lot_ of code to change! Note:
>This is all the UAPI visible code (the same coding style for 20 years).
>I am worried about this part.
We'll see. Lets do it in a sensitive way, in steps. But for new things,
I think it is good not to stick with old and outlived habits.
>
>> > >
>> > > > +/* tcamsg flags stored in attribute TCAA_ACT_FLAGS
>> > > > + *
>> > > > + * ACT_LARGE_DUMP_ON user->kernel to request for larger than
>> > > > TCA_ACT_MAX_PRIO
>> > > > + * actions in a dump. All dump responses will contain the number of
>> > > > actions
>> > > > + * being dumped stored in for user app's consumption in TCAA_ACT_COUNT
>> > > > + *
>> > > > + */
>> > > > +#define ACT_LARGE_DUMP_ON (1 << 0)
>> > >
>> > > Use "BIT(0)"
>> > >
>> >
>> > Same question as before.
>>
>> Same answer :)
>>
>
>I will change this one - it is a lot simpler coding style
>wide/wise than the other one.
>
>> > Are you planning to cleanup the rest of the code which
>
>> > So you are using 8 bits for one flag which requires one bit?
>> > + the TLV header? Sounds like overkill.
>> > Note: We dont need more than 1 or 2 bits for this case.
>> > Even 32 bits is overkill for what I am doing.
>> > When do i need to extend a single bit representation?
>>
>> I don't see any problem adding couple of bytes if it increases cleannes
>> and easy extendability.
>>
>
>How do you extend one bit? Seriously. If i want to add another bit I
>will add one more to existing bit map not 64 (T + L + 8bits + pad).
>If i ran out of space i will add a new TLV.
Netlink is TLV, should be used as TLV. I don't see how you can run out
any space. You tend to use Netlink in some weird hybrid mode, with only
argument being space. I think that couple of bytes wasted is not
a problem at all...
>
>> > >
>> > > > struct net *net = sock_net(skb->sk);
>> > > > - struct nlattr *tca[TCA_ACT_MAX + 1];
>> > > > + struct nlattr *tca[TCAA_MAX + 1];
>> > >
>> > > This is certainly wrong.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Why is it wrong?
>>
>> Because you use existing TCA_ACT_ attr enum.
>>
>
>Is there a programming mistake or you just dont like the name?
>AFAIK, and based on my testing that code is correct.
See my first comment. I think that you mix 2 things together.
>
>> > > > - ret = nlmsg_parse(n, sizeof(struct tcamsg), tca, TCA_ACT_MAX,
>> > > > NULL,
>> > > > + ret = nlmsg_parse(n, sizeof(struct tcamsg), tca, TCAA_MAX,
>> > > > tcaa_policy,
>> > >
>> > > This is certainly wrong.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Same question as above.
>>
>> Same answer.
>>
>
>And same question still.
>
>cheers,
>jamal
