Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list netdev); Fri, 07 Jan 2005 18:54:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from b.mx.projectdream.org (eth0-0.arisu.projectdream.org [194.158.4.191]) by oss.sgi.com (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j082sjGP028644 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2005 18:54:46 -0800 Received: from postel.suug.ch (unknown [195.134.158.23]) (using TLSv1 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by b.mx.projectdream.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70A81F; Sat, 8 Jan 2005 15:54:14 +0100 (CET) Received: by postel.suug.ch (Postfix, from userid 10001) id D868E1C0EA; Sat, 8 Jan 2005 15:54:57 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 15:54:57 +0100 From: Thomas Graf To: jamal Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: [RFC] ematch API, u32 ematch, nbyte ematch, basic classifier Message-ID: <20050108145457.GZ26856@postel.suug.ch> References: <20050103125635.GB26856@postel.suug.ch> <20050104223612.GN26856@postel.suug.ch> <1104894728.1117.56.camel@jzny.localdomain> <20050105110048.GO26856@postel.suug.ch> <1104931991.1117.152.camel@jzny.localdomain> <20050105144514.GQ26856@postel.suug.ch> <1105019225.2312.7.camel@jzny.localdomain> <20050106194102.GW26856@postel.suug.ch> <1105105511.1046.77.camel@jzny.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1105105511.1046.77.camel@jzny.localdomain> X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.80/650/Sun Jan 2 19:00:02 2005 clamav-milter version 0.80j on 127.0.0.1 X-Virus-Status: Clean X-archive-position: 13629 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com X-original-sender: tgraf@suug.ch Precedence: bulk X-list: netdev * jamal <1105105511.1046.77.camel@jzny.localdomain> 2005-01-07 08:45 > > 3) Fill out a pkt_info struct with ptr and off2 so we don't lose > > hashing capabilities > > And this is why i dont like it. What's the reason for not liking it? I know it's not a perfect solution in terms of layers but having the classifier sharing already gathered information to an ematch is not a bad thing. > I think the u32 changes are one-shot if you want to avoid lotsa #ifdefs. > Someone sends you a old sel, then convert it to a new one for storage. > Dumping is a little trickier, need some way to recognize old style > request. The easiest way is to introduce a new TLV type and regard configuration requests carrying the old type in compatibility mode. > The trick would be to always use sel2 and present no kconfig options for back > compat. We need to figure out how to recognize an old style dump and we are > set. Given we always use the new method by converting old style parameters and we use em_u32 as u32 key we would need to put a dependcy on ematch && em_u32 for cls_u32. > Above you are trying to insert off2 into the info (what i said i didnt > like) - how are you going to achieve the same with a standalone en_u32 > from say you basic classifier? I won't and it's not necessary, one can use u32 if he requires the nexthdr capabilities or otherwise use em_cmp support the skb layers. (Which i know is not perfect since the pointers to those layers are not provided all the time).