On Thu, 2004-12-30 at 09:09, Thomas Graf wrote:
> * jamal <1104414713.1047.130.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2004-12-30 08:51
> > In current code you can have CONFIG_NET_CLS_ACT and not use new
> > style policer, rather use old one i.e CONFIG_NET_CLS_POLICE. You seem to
> > indicate presence of CONFIG_NET_CLS_ACT implies absence of
> > NET_CLS_POLICE.
> Is this wrong? Current code: (u32)
> 2004/06/15 hadi | #ifdef CONFIG_NET_CLS_ACT
> 2004/06/15 hadi | struct tc_action *action;
> 2004/06/15 hadi | #else
> 2002/02/05 torvalds | #ifdef CONFIG_NET_CLS_POLICE
> 2002/02/05 torvalds | struct tcf_police *police;
> 2002/02/05 torvalds | #endif
> 2004/06/15 hadi | #endif
> > config NET_CLS_POLICE
> > ...
> > depends on NET_CLS && NET_QOS && NET_ACT_POLICE!=y &&
> > NET_ACT_POLICE!=m
> Hmm... doesn't make too much sense for me. What's the advantage of
> allowing this mix?
Ok, send a patch for the Kconfig then;-> Make sure that CLS_POLICE cant
be selected if CONFIG_NET_CLS_ACT is on.
[Agreed that doing it this way would allow killing the policer sooner]