From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
Subject: Re: [patch net-next v4 00/10] net: sched: allow qdiscs to share
 filter block instances
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 16:51:15 +0100
Message-ID: <20180104155115.GG2213@nanopsycho>
References: <20180104065702.GH2067@nanopsycho.orion>
 <20180103230658.595eac7d@cakuba.netronome.com>
 <20180104101257.GA2213@nanopsycho>
 <20180104.103348.607053530850783354.davem@davemloft.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: kubakici@wp.pl, dsahern@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        jhs@mojatatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com, mlxsw@mellanox.com,
        andrew@lunn.ch, vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com,
        f.fainelli@gmail.com, michael.chan@broadcom.com,
        ganeshgr@chelsio.com, saeedm@mellanox.com, matanb@mellanox.com,
        leonro@mellanox.com, idosch@mellanox.com,
        simon.horman@netronome.com, pieter.jansenvanvuuren@netronome.com,
        john.hurley@netronome.com, alexander.h.duyck@intel.com,
        ogerlitz@mellanox.com, john.fastabend@gmail.com,
        daniel@iogearbox.net
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f65.google.com ([74.125.82.65]:45433 "EHLO
        mail-wm0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1753199AbeADPvR (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Thu, 4 Jan 2018 10:51:17 -0500
Received: by mail-wm0-f65.google.com with SMTP id 9so4276534wme.4
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Thu, 04 Jan 2018 07:51:16 -0800 (PST)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180104.103348.607053530850783354.davem@davemloft.net>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 04:33:48PM CET, davem@davemloft.net wrote:
>From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
>Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 11:12:57 +0100
>
>> No magic. ens8 and ens7 share the same block.
>
>No Jiri, the fact that they share the same block _IS MAGIC_.
>
>It is unexpected behavior to modify a rule and have it propagate
>to devices not mentioned in the command line.
>
>This is totally going to break things and upset people.
>
>Saying it shows up in some tc dump command is not an argument
>for this behavior being "expected".  NO way.
>
>I completely agree with David and others, you _MUST_ make an
>explicit API and set of operations to make changes to rules
>contained in shared blocks.

Okay. So you say that when I create a qdisc and its block is created, I
can never share it.

I have to always explicitly create block to share and only then to bind
it to some qdisc/s?