Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:04:32PM CEST, xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com wrote: >On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 9:46 AM Samudrala, Sridhar ><sridhar.samudr...@intel.com> wrote: >> >> On 6/27/2018 12:50 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> > if you don't like "tc filter template add dev dummy0 ingress", how >> > about: >> > "tc template add dev dummy0 ingress ..." >> > "tc template add dev dummy0 ingress chain 22 ..." >> > that makes more sense I think. > >Better than 'tc filter template', but this doesn't reflect 'template' >is a template of tc filter, it could be an action etc., since it is in the
It's a template of filter per chain. I don't understand how it could be an action... >same position with 'tc action/filter/qdisc'. > > >> >> Isn't it possible to avoid introducing another keyword 'template', >> >> Can't we just do >> tc chain add dev dummy0 ingress flower chain_index 0 >> to create a chain that takes any types of flower rules with index 0 >> and >> tc chain add dev dummy0 ingress flower chain_index 22 >> dst_mac 00:00:00:00:00:00/00:00:00:00:FF:FF >> tc chain add dev dummy0 ingress flower chain_index 23 >> dst_ip 192.168.0.0/16 >> to create 2 chains 22 and 23 that allow rules with specific fields. > >Sounds good too. Since filter chain can be shared by qdiscs, >a 'tc chain' sub-command makes sense, and would probably make >it easier to be shared. We don't have such specific object. It is implicit. We create it whenever someone users it. Either filter of chain. I don't like new "tc chain" object in cmdline. It really isn't.
