On 16-02-26 09:39 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
> 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?
>
Its not necessary it is a completely general function and I only
lifted it out of cls_u32 so that the cls_flower classifier could
also use it.
I don't see the need off-hand to have it wrapped in an ORd ifdef
statement where its (CONFIG_NET_CLS_U32 | CONFIG_NET_CLS_X ...).
Any particular reason you were thnking it should be wrapped in ifdefs?
Thanks for taking a look at the patches.
.John
