| To: | Thomas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 2/9] PKT_SCHED: tc filter extension API |
| From: | jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | 30 Dec 2004 08:51:54 -0500 |
| Cc: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20041230123023.GO32419@postel.suug.ch> |
| Organization: | jamalopolous |
| References: | <20041230122652.GM32419@postel.suug.ch> <20041230123023.GO32419@postel.suug.ch> |
| Reply-to: | hadi@xxxxxxxxxx |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Thomas,
Havent looked at the whole set - will later today; quick question:
On Thu, 2004-12-30 at 07:30, Thomas Graf wrote:
> +struct tcf_exts
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_NET_CLS_ACT
> + struct tc_action *action;
> +#elif defined CONFIG_NET_CLS_POLICE
> + struct tcf_police *police;
> +#endif
> +};
Things like above:
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.
A fix for example maybe to s/elif/ifdef [1]
Anyways, back later to peek some more.
cheers,
jamal
[1]Look at Kconfig rules:
----
config NET_CLS_POLICE
...
depends on NET_CLS && NET_QOS && NET_ACT_POLICE!=y &&
NET_ACT_POLICE!=m
----
Anyways, back later to peek some more.
cheers,
jamal
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH PKT_SCHED 11/17]: Remove checks for impossible conditions in ipt action, Thomas Graf |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: How can i join this mail list?, Walter Liu |
| Previous by Thread: | [PATCH 2/9] PKT_SCHED: tc filter extension API, Thomas Graf |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 2/9] PKT_SCHED: tc filter extension API, Thomas Graf |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |