From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6170C432C0 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 10:02:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3A9E20740 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 10:02:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727332AbfKYKCU (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Nov 2019 05:02:20 -0500 Received: from correo.us.es ([193.147.175.20]:46234 "EHLO mail.us.es" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727133AbfKYKCU (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Nov 2019 05:02:20 -0500 Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (unknown [192.168.2.11]) by mail.us.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id C96A1C2313 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 11:02:15 +0100 (CET) Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by antivirus1-rhel7.int (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0C93B8007 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 11:02:14 +0100 (CET) Received: by antivirus1-rhel7.int (Postfix, from userid 99) id BF23BBAACC; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 11:02:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by antivirus1-rhel7.int (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9288FF13C; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 11:02:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from 192.168.1.97 (192.168.1.97) by antivirus1-rhel7.int (F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/550/antivirus1-rhel7.int); Mon, 25 Nov 2019 11:02:12 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Status: clean(F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/550/antivirus1-rhel7.int) Received: from us.es (sys.soleta.eu [212.170.55.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: 1984lsi) by entrada.int (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 76B7342EF42B; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 11:02:13 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 11:02:14 +0100 X-SMTPAUTHUS: auth mail.us.es From: Pablo Neira Ayuso To: Stefano Brivio Cc: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, Florian Westphal , Kadlecsik =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F3zsef?= , Eric Garver , Phil Sutter Subject: Re: [PATCH nf-next v2 0/8] nftables: Set implementation for arbitrary concatenation of ranges Message-ID: <20191125100214.ke2inuq7cequbdgx@salvia> References: <20191123200518.t2we5nqmmh62g5b6@salvia> <20191125103106.5acbc958@elisabeth> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191125103106.5acbc958@elisabeth> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 10:31:06AM +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote: > On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 21:05:18 +0100 > Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 02:39:59PM +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote: > > [...] > > > Patch 1/8 implements the needed UAPI bits: additions to the existing > > > interface are kept to a minimum by recycling existing concepts for > > > both ranging and concatenation, as suggested by Florian. > > > > > > Patch 2/8 adds a new bitmap operation that copies the source bitmap > > > onto the destination while removing a given region, and is needed to > > > delete regions of arrays mapping between lookup tables. > > > > > > Patch 3/8 is the actual set implementation. > > > > > > Patch 4/8 introduces selftests for the new implementation. > > [...] > > > > After talking to Florian, I'm inclined to merge upstream up to patch > > 4/8 in this merge window, once the UAPI discussion is sorted out. > > Thanks for the update. Let me know if there's some specific topic or > concern I can start addressing for patches 5/8 to 8/8. Merge window is now closed, I was trying to get the bare minimum in this round. Now we have a bit more time to merge this upstream. BTW, do you have numbers comparing the AVX2 version with the C code? I quickly had a look at your numbers, but not clear to me if this is compared there. Thanks.