On 16-02-23 05:23 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:14 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim <j...@mojatatu.com> wrote:
It doesnt seem neccessary to have hinfo in tc_action. Quick scan:
__tcf_hash_release() seems to be the only other place that uses it.
And the callers to that appear capable of passing the struct
net or tn which eventually propagates up...
The tcf_action_destroy() callchain still can't find out hinfo yet.
Did you mean something else or am i missing the obvious?
I am looking at the call sites for tcf_action_destroy():
-tc_dump_tfilter() has access to *net
-tcf_exts_change() - one level lower it has access to *net; i think you
added this to your patch too.
-tcf_action_init() has *net.
I know this is one of the ugly parts, this is why I mentioned it
in the changelog that we should refactor it. Do you mind if I
refactor this later?
I didnt understand the problem.
That also seemed unneeded. You could have derived hinfo
from tn.
This is a pure taste of the API, I want to hide the hinfo as much as
I can and expose tn to callers.
I dont know how i missed that;->
Otherwise looks reasonable. I was hoping we could get rid of the per
action pernet ops but that could come later.
That is hard (if not impossible), because we have to allocate the pernet
ops on heap, which seems not doable.
We can worry later. I thought there was a way to do it with compilation
into namespaces.
cheers,
jamal
