On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 7:53 AM, John Fastabend
<john.fastab...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The offload decision was originally very basic and tied to if the dev
> implemented the appropriate ndo op hook. The next step is to allow
> the user to more flexibly define if any paticular rule should be
> offloaded or not. In order to have this logic in one function lift
> the current check into a helper routine tc_should_offload().
>
> Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <john.r.fastab...@intel.com>
> ---
> include/net/pkt_cls.h | 5 +++++
> net/sched/cls_u32.c | 8 ++++----
> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/net/pkt_cls.h b/include/net/pkt_cls.h
> index 2121df5..e64d20b 100644
> --- a/include/net/pkt_cls.h
> +++ b/include/net/pkt_cls.h
> @@ -392,4 +392,9 @@ struct tc_cls_u32_offload {
> };
> };
>
> +static inline bool tc_should_offload(struct net_device *dev)
> +{
> + return dev->netdev_ops->ndo_setup_tc;
> +}
> +
These should be protected by CONFIG_NET_CLS_U32, no?
