On Thu 18 Apr 2019 at 20:46, Jakub Kicinski
wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 16:33:22 +, Vlad Buslov wrote:
>> Considering this, I tried to improve my solution to remove possibility
>> of multiple adds of same filter and it seems to me that it would be
>> enough to move hw_filters list managemen
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 18:13:37 +, Vlad Buslov wrote:
> On Thu 18 Apr 2019 at 21:02, Jakub Kicinski
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 17:58:26 +, Vlad Buslov wrote:
> >> On Thu 18 Apr 2019 at 20:46, Jakub Kicinski
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 16:33:22 +, Vlad Buslov wrote:
On Thu 18 Apr 2019 at 21:02, Jakub Kicinski
wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 17:58:26 +, Vlad Buslov wrote:
>> On Thu 18 Apr 2019 at 20:46, Jakub Kicinski
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 16:33:22 +, Vlad Buslov wrote:
>> >> Considering this, I tried to improve my solution to remove po
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 17:58:26 +, Vlad Buslov wrote:
> On Thu 18 Apr 2019 at 20:46, Jakub Kicinski
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 16:33:22 +, Vlad Buslov wrote:
> >> Considering this, I tried to improve my solution to remove possibility
> >> of multiple adds of same filter and it seems
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 16:33:22 +, Vlad Buslov wrote:
> Considering this, I tried to improve my solution to remove possibility
> of multiple adds of same filter and it seems to me that it would be
> enough to move hw_filters list management in flower offloads functions:
> add filter to list while
On Wed 17 Apr 2019 at 19:34, Jakub Kicinski
wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 07:29:36 +, Vlad Buslov wrote:
>> On Wed 17 Apr 2019 at 00:49, Jakub Kicinski
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 17:20:47 +0300, Vlad Buslov wrote:
>> >> @@ -1551,6 +1558,10 @@ static int fl_change(struct net *net, st
On Wed 17 Apr 2019 at 19:34, Jakub Kicinski
wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 07:29:36 +, Vlad Buslov wrote:
>> On Wed 17 Apr 2019 at 00:49, Jakub Kicinski
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 17:20:47 +0300, Vlad Buslov wrote:
>> >> @@ -1551,6 +1558,10 @@ static int fl_change(struct net *net, st
On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 07:29:36 +, Vlad Buslov wrote:
> On Wed 17 Apr 2019 at 00:49, Jakub Kicinski
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 17:20:47 +0300, Vlad Buslov wrote:
> >> @@ -1551,6 +1558,10 @@ static int fl_change(struct net *net, struct
> >> sk_buff *in_skb,
> >>goto errout_ma
On Wed 17 Apr 2019 at 00:49, Jakub Kicinski
wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 17:20:47 +0300, Vlad Buslov wrote:
>> @@ -1551,6 +1558,10 @@ static int fl_change(struct net *net, struct sk_buff
>> *in_skb,
>> goto errout_mask;
>>
>> if (!tc_skip_hw(fnew->flags)) {
>> +spi
On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 17:20:47 +0300, Vlad Buslov wrote:
> @@ -1551,6 +1558,10 @@ static int fl_change(struct net *net, struct sk_buff
> *in_skb,
> goto errout_mask;
>
> if (!tc_skip_hw(fnew->flags)) {
> + spin_lock(&tp->lock);
> + list_add(&fnew->hw_lis
Recent changes that introduced unlocked flower did not properly account for
case when reoffload is initiated concurrently with filter updates. To fix
the issue, extend flower with 'hw_filters' list that is used to store
filters that don't have 'skip_hw' flag set. Filter is added to the list
before
11 matches
Mail list logo