Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 02:11:19PM CET, j...@mojatatu.com wrote:
>On 18-01-06 03:43 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>
>
>>
>> > @@ -886,8 +887,13 @@ static int tcf_fill_node(struct net *net, struct
>> > sk_buff *skb,
>> > tcm->tcm_family = AF_UNSPEC;
>> > tcm->tcm__pad1 = 0;
>> > tcm->tcm__pad2 = 0;
>> > - tcm->tcm_ifindex = qdisc_dev(q)->ifindex;
>> > - tcm->tcm_parent = parent;
>> > + if (q) {
>> > + tcm->tcm_ifindex = qdisc_dev(q)->ifindex;
>> > + tcm->tcm_parent = parent;
>> > + } else {
>> > + tcm->tcm_ifindex = 0; /* block index is stored in parent */
>> > + tcm->tcm_parent = block->index;
>> > + }
>>
>> Please guys, please look at this reuse (also on clt side). I would like
>> you to double-check this reuse of existing API for balock_index carrying
>> purpose. I believe it's UAPI safe. But please, check it out carefully.
>>
>
>
>Should not break any ABI/UAPI AFAIK. Maybe go for a negative ifindex
>(not sure if zero means something speacial to someone).
Like -1 means parent is block_index?
Why would 0 mean something special? Could you point to a code that
suggests it?
>
>cheers,
>jamal
>
