On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Tom Herbert <t...@herbertland.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 10:42 AM, David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> wrote: >> From: Tom Herbert <t...@herbertland.com> >> Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 08:48:55 -0700 >> >>> The flow_dissector interface is not a uAPI. >> >> That's not true, insofar as cls_flower.c uses the flow_dissector >> therefore if you change the flow_dissector in certain ways then >> cls_flower.c might have it's behavior changed and that is in fact UAPI >> facing. > > Then I would suggest adding another flag like FLOW_DISSECTOR_F_FLOWER > and when anyone puts new code into flow_dissector they can wrap it > with "if !(flags & FLOW_DISSECTOR_F_FLOWER)". If the flower uAPI is > subsequently update then the conditional can be removed. This way > flower can support maintain its APIs, but we can still still extend > and improve flow_dissector for othersuse cases. > Actually, it would make more sense to have the converse so we don't have to touch flower. I will add FLOW_DISSECTOR_F_NOT_FLOWER
> Tom
