Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list netdev); Thu, 30 Dec 2004 20:34:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx03.cybersurf.com (mx03.cybersurf.com [209.197.145.106])
	by oss.sgi.com (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id iBV4YIpN022441
	for <netdev@oss.sgi.com>; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 20:34:38 -0800
Received: from mail.cyberus.ca ([209.197.145.21])
	by mx03.cybersurf.com with esmtp (Exim 4.30)
	id 1CkEcq-0002cd-Jm
	for netdev@oss.sgi.com; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 23:42:56 -0500
Received: from cpe0030ab124d2f-cm014500000962.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com ([24.103.99.32] helo=[10.0.0.9])
	by mail.cyberus.ca with esmtp (Exim 4.20)
	id 1CkEcj-0005UN-CZ; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 23:42:49 -0500
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] PKT_SCHED: tc filter extension API
From: jamal <hadi@cyberus.ca>
Reply-To: hadi@cyberus.ca
To: Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>,
        netdev@oss.sgi.com
In-Reply-To: <20041230140929.GY32419@postel.suug.ch>
References: <20041230122652.GM32419@postel.suug.ch>
	 <20041230123023.GO32419@postel.suug.ch>
	 <1104414713.1047.130.camel@jzny.localdomain>
	 <20041230140929.GY32419@postel.suug.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: jamalopolous
Message-Id: <1104468164.1049.197.camel@jzny.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 
Date: 30 Dec 2004 23:42:44 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.80/645/Mon Dec 27 14:56:20 2004
	clamav-milter version 0.80j
	on 127.0.0.1
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-archive-position: 13267
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com
Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com
X-original-sender: hadi@cyberus.ca
Precedence: bulk
X-list: netdev

On Thu, 2004-12-30 at 09:09, Thomas Graf wrote:
> * jamal <1104414713.1047.130.camel@jzny.localdomain> 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]

cheers,
jamal