Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 05:52:54PM CEST, t...@herbertland.com wrote: >On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 1:15 AM, Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> wrote: >> Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 10:08:57AM CEST, simon.hor...@netronome.com wrote: >>>On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 11:17:46AM -0700, Tom Herbert wrote: >>>> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 2:40 AM, Simon Horman <simon.hor...@netronome.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> > On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 01:37:55PM -0700, Tom Herbert wrote: >>>> >> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 1:41 AM, Simon Horman >>>> >> <simon.hor...@netronome.com> wrote: >>>> >> > Move dissection of tunnel info from the flower classifier to the flow >>>> >> > dissector where all other dissection occurs. This should not have any >>>> >> > behavioural affect on other users of the flow dissector. >>>> > >>>> > ... >>>> >>>> > I feel that we are circling back the perennial issue of flower using the >>>> > flow dissector in a somewhat broader/different way than many/all other >>>> > users of the flow dissector. >>>> > >>>> Simon, >>>> >>>> It's more like __skb_flow_dissect is already an incredibly complex >>>> function and because of that it's difficult to maintain. We need to >>>> measure changes against that fact. For this patch, there is precisely >>>> one user (cls_flower.c) and it's not at all clear to me if there will >>>> be ever any more (e.g. for hashing we don't need tunnel info). IMO, it >>>> should be just as easy and less convolution for everyone to have >>>> flower call __skb_flow_dissect_tunnel_info directly and not call if >>>> from __skb_flow_dissect. >>> >>>Hi Tom, >>> >>>my original suggestion was just that, but Jiri indicated a strong preference >>>for the approach taken by this patch. I think we need to widen the >>>participants in this discussion. >> >> I like the __skb_flow_dissect to be the function to call and it will do >> the job according to the configuration. I don't like to split in >> multiple calls. > >Those are not technical arguments. As I already mentioned, I don't >like it when we add stuff for the benefit of a 1% use case that >negatively impacts the rest of the 99% cases which is what I believe >is happening here.
Yeah. I just wanted the flow dissector to stay compact. But if needed, could be split. I just fear that it will become a mess that's all. > >> Does not make sense in the most of the cases as the >> dissection state would have to be carried in between calls. > >Please elaborate. This code is being moved into __skb_flow_dissect, so >the functionality was already there. I don't see any description in >this discussion that things were broken and that this patch is a >necessary fix. Yeah, you are right. > >Thanks, >Tom
