netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 2/9] PKT_SCHED: tc filter extension API

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20041230122652.GM32419@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041230123023.GO32419@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1104414713.1047.130.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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?

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>