On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 08:32:58 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 08:19:56PM CEST, xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com wrote: > >On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 12:54 AM Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> wrote: > >> > >> Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 07:39:36PM CEST, xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com wrote: > >> >On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 10:20 AM Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com> > >> >wrote: > >> >> > >> >> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 12:47 AM Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > From: Jiri Pirko <j...@mellanox.com> > >> >> > > >> >> > In case a chain is empty and not explicitly created by a user, > >> >> > such chain should not exist. The only exception is if there is > >> >> > an action "goto chain" pointing to it. In that case, don't show the > >> >> > chain in the dump. Track the chain references held by actions and > >> >> > use them to find out if a chain should or should not be shown > >> >> > in chain dump. > >> >> > > >> >> > Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <j...@mellanox.com> > >> >> > >> >> Looks reasonable to me. > >> >> > >> >> Acked-by: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com> > >> > > >> >Hold on... > >> > > >> >If you increase the refcnt for a zombie chain on NEWCHAIN path, > >> >then it would become a non-zombie, this makes sense. However, > >> >if the action_refcnt gets increased again when another action uses it, > >> >it become a zombie again because refcnt==action_refcnt?? > >> > >> No. action always increases both refcnt and action_refcnt > > > >Hmm, then the name zombie is confusing, with your definition all > >chains implicitly created by actions are zombies, unless touched > >by user explicitly. Please find a better name. > > Okay. Perhaps chain_inactive?
FWIW to me active brings to mind that it's handling traffic. Brining in my suggestions from an off-list discussion: tcf_chain_act_refs_only() or tcf_chain_pure_act_target() or maybe tcf_chain_has_no_filters() ?
