From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 00/13] cls_u32 cleanups and fixes.
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2018 16:48:27 +0100
Message-ID: <20180909154827.GH19965@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <20180909013132.3222-1-viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <5f835727-3f86-1532-889f-d11ae17e16d4@mojatatu.com>
 <20180909141538.GG19965@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
To: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:51946 "EHLO
        ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1726489AbeIIUid (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Sun, 9 Sep 2018 16:38:33 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180909141538.GG19965@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Sun, Sep 09, 2018 at 03:15:38PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:

> Umm...  Interesting - TCA_U32_SEL is not the only thing that
> gets ignored there; TCA_U32_MARK gets the same treatment.
> And then there's a lovely question what to do with n->pf -
> it's an array of n->sel.nkeys counters, and apparently we
> want (at least in common cases) to avoid resetting those.
> 
> *If* we declare that ->nkeys mismatch means failure, it's
> all relatively easy to implement.  Alternatively, we could
> declare that selector change means resetting the stats.
> Preferences?

BTW, shouldn't we issue u32_clear_hw_hnode() every time
we destroy an hnode?  It's done on u32_delete(), it's
done (for root ht) on u32_destroy(), but it's not done
for any other hnodes when you remove the entire (not shared)
filter.  Looks fishy...