Hi,
On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 12:30:20 +0200 Daniel Borkmann <dan...@iogearbox.net> wrote:
> On 09/22/2016 03:21 PM, Shmulik Ladkani wrote:
> > From: Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladk...@gmail.com>
> >
> > 'tcfm_ok_push' specifies whether a mac_len sized push is needed upon
> > egress to the target device (if action is performed at ingress).
> >
> > Rename it to 'tcfm_mac_header_xmit' as this is actually an attribute of
> > the target device.
> > This allows to decouple the attribute from the action to be taken.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladk...@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > include/net/tc_act/tc_mirred.h | 2 +-
> > net/sched/act_mirred.c | 10 +++++-----
> > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/net/tc_act/tc_mirred.h b/include/net/tc_act/tc_mirred.h
> > index 62770ad..5275158 100644
> > --- a/include/net/tc_act/tc_mirred.h
> > +++ b/include/net/tc_act/tc_mirred.h
> > @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ struct tcf_mirred {
> > struct tc_action common;
> > int tcfm_eaction;
> > int tcfm_ifindex;
> > - int tcfm_ok_push;
> > + int tcfm_mac_header_xmit;
>
> Since you already touch this here and in patch 2/4 anyway, maybe
> make that a bool along the way?
Ok.
(Thought of it, but my urge to lessen the diff eventually won)
> Perhaps instead of tcfm_mac_header_xmit, tcfm_mac_header_push
> might be a better name?
Don't think so.
Eventually this serves as the decision to either push or pull, so prefer
not to name it as the action (push/pull) but rather what is target
device's property (xmits at mh?).
