On 1/11/18 2:40 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> 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)
>
Never mind. scanned that too quickly.
