Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 05:17:28PM CET, dsah...@gmail.com wrote:
>On 1/9/18 7:07 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> From: Jiri Pirko <j...@mellanox.com>
>>
>> Use block index in the messages instead.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <j...@mellanox.com>
>> ---
>> net/sched/cls_api.c | 5 +++--
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/sched/cls_api.c b/net/sched/cls_api.c
>> index 9b45950..31e91dc 100644
>> --- a/net/sched/cls_api.c
>> +++ b/net/sched/cls_api.c
>> @@ -672,8 +672,9 @@ int tcf_classify(struct sk_buff *skb, const struct
>> tcf_proto *tp,
>> #ifdef CONFIG_NET_CLS_ACT
>> reset:
>> if (unlikely(limit++ >= max_reclassify_loop)) {
>> - net_notice_ratelimited("%s: reclassify loop, rule prio %u,
>> protocol %02x\n",
>> - tp->q->ops->id, tp->prio & 0xffff,
>> + net_notice_ratelimited("%u: reclassify loop, rule prio %u,
>> protocol %02x\n",
>
>if you are dumping index instead of prio shouldn't the 'rule prio' above
>be adjusted?
I'm not! Why do you think so?
"%u:" is tp->chain->block->index
"prio %u" is tp->prio & 0xffff
"%02x" is ntohs(tp->protocol)
>
>
>> + tp->chain->block->index,
>> + tp->prio & 0xffff,
>> ntohs(tp->protocol));
>> return TC_ACT_SHOT;
>> }
>>
>
