| To: | jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 2/9] PKT_SCHED: tc filter extension API |
| From: | Thomas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 30 Dec 2004 15:09:29 +0100 |
| Cc: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1104414713.1047.130.camel@jzny.localdomain> |
| References: | <20041230122652.GM32419@postel.suug.ch> <20041230123023.GO32419@postel.suug.ch> <1104414713.1047.130.camel@jzny.localdomain> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
* 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? |
| Previous by Date: | Re: How can i join this mail list?, Walter Liu |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH PKT_SCHED 0/17]: tc action cleanup + fixes, Patrick McHardy |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 2/9] PKT_SCHED: tc filter extension API, jamal |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 2/9] PKT_SCHED: tc filter extension API, jamal |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |