Re: [PATCH] cls_u32 u32_classify()

2008-02-20 Thread David Miller 
From: jamal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 06:54:48 -0500

> On Mon, 2008-18-02 at 21:46 -0800, David Miller wrote:
> 
> 
> > Can some u32 expert review this?
> 
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=120178638323045&w=2

Fair enough.

Dzianis, please provide the feedback Jamal is asking for.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH] cls_u32 u32_classify()

2008-02-19 Thread jamal 
On Mon, 2008-18-02 at 21:46 -0800, David Miller wrote:


> Can some u32 expert review this?

http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=120178638323045&w=2

cheers,
jamal

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH] cls_u32 u32_classify()

2008-02-18 Thread David Miller 
From: Dzianis Kahanovich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:16:30 -0200

> Currently fine u32 "hashkey ... at ..." not work with relative offsets.
> There are simpliest fix to use "eat".

So the question is whether 'sel' is defined to be calculated
before all offsets and EAT operations are processed or before.

I do not understand the U32 classifier enough to know what
this kind of change might or might not break.

Can some u32 expert review this?

Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH] cls_u32 u32_classify() +

2008-01-31 Thread jamal 
On Wed, 2008-30-01 at 11:31 -0200, Dzianis Kahanovich wrote:
> Currently fine u32 "hashkey ... at ..." not work with relative offsets.
> There are simpliest fix to use "eat".
> (sorry, v2)
> 

Hi, 
Please send me the commands you are trying to run that motivated this
patch.

cheers,
jamal

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[PATCH] cls_u32 u32_classify() +

2008-01-30 Thread Dzianis Kahanovich 

Currently fine u32 "hashkey ... at ..." not work with relative offsets.
There are simpliest fix to use "eat".
(sorry, v2)

--
WBR,
Denis Kaganovich,  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://mahatma.bspu.unibel.by


diff -pruN linux-2.6.orig/net/sched/cls_u32.c linux-2.6/net/sched/cls_u32.c
--- linux-2.6.orig/net/sched/cls_u32.c  2008-01-29 23:02:50.0 +0200
+++ linux-2.6/net/sched/cls_u32.c   2008-01-30 11:28:00.0 +0200
@@ -181,11 +181,13 @@ check_terminal:
 
ht = n->ht_down;
sel = 0;
-   if (ht->divisor)
-   sel = 
ht->divisor&u32_hash_fold(*(u32*)(ptr+n->sel.hoff), &n->sel,n->fshift);
 
-   if (!(n->sel.flags&(TC_U32_VAROFFSET|TC_U32_OFFSET|TC_U32_EAT)))
+   if 
(!(n->sel.flags&(TC_U32_VAROFFSET|TC_U32_OFFSET|TC_U32_EAT))) {
+   if (!ht->divisor)
+   goto next_ht;
+   sel = 
ht->divisor&u32_hash_fold(*(u32*)(ptr+n->sel.hoff), &n->sel,n->fshift);
goto next_ht;
+   }
 
if (n->sel.flags&(TC_U32_OFFSET|TC_U32_VAROFFSET)) {
off2 = n->sel.off + 3;
@@ -198,6 +200,9 @@ check_terminal:
off2 = 0;
}
 
+   if (ht->divisor && ptr+n->sel.hoff < skb_tail_pointer(skb))
+   sel = 
ht->divisor&u32_hash_fold(*(u32*)(ptr+n->sel.hoff), &n->sel,n->fshift);
+
if (ptr < skb_tail_pointer(skb))
goto next_ht;
}

[PATCH] cls_u32 u32_classify() ++

2008-01-30 Thread Dzianis Kahanovich 

Currently fine u32 "hashkey ... at ..." not work with relative offsets.
There are simpliest fix to use "eat".
(sorry, i'm idiot)

--
WBR,
Denis Kaganovich,  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://mahatma.bspu.unibel.by




diff -pruN linux-2.6.orig/net/sched/cls_u32.c linux-2.6/net/sched/cls_u32.c
--- linux-2.6.orig/net/sched/cls_u32.c  2008-01-29 23:02:50.0 +0200
+++ linux-2.6/net/sched/cls_u32.c   2008-01-30 11:37:31.0 +0200
@@ -181,11 +181,13 @@ check_terminal:
 
ht = n->ht_down;
sel = 0;
-   if (ht->divisor)
-   sel = 
ht->divisor&u32_hash_fold(*(u32*)(ptr+n->sel.hoff), &n->sel,n->fshift);
 
-   if (!(n->sel.flags&(TC_U32_VAROFFSET|TC_U32_OFFSET|TC_U32_EAT)))
+   if 
(!(n->sel.flags&(TC_U32_VAROFFSET|TC_U32_OFFSET|TC_U32_EAT))) {
+   if (!ht->divisor)
+   goto next_ht;
+   sel = 
ht->divisor&u32_hash_fold(*(u32*)(ptr+n->sel.hoff), &n->sel,n->fshift);
goto next_ht;
+   }
 
if (n->sel.flags&(TC_U32_OFFSET|TC_U32_VAROFFSET)) {
off2 = n->sel.off + 3;
@@ -198,6 +200,9 @@ check_terminal:
off2 = 0;
}
 
+   if (ht->divisor && ptr+n->sel.hoff+4 < skb_tail_pointer(skb))
+   sel = 
ht->divisor&u32_hash_fold(*(u32*)(ptr+n->sel.hoff), &n->sel,n->fshift);
+
if (ptr < skb_tail_pointer(skb))
goto next_ht;
}

[PATCH] cls_u32 u32_classify()

2008-01-30 Thread Dzianis Kahanovich 

Currently fine u32 "hashkey ... at ..." not work with relative offsets.
There are simpliest fix to use "eat".

--
WBR,
Denis Kaganovich,  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://mahatma.bspu.unibel.by
diff -pruN linux-2.6.orig/net/sched/cls_u32.c linux-2.6/net/sched/cls_u32.c
--- linux-2.6.orig/net/sched/cls_u32.c  2008-01-29 23:02:50.0 +0200
+++ linux-2.6/net/sched/cls_u32.c   2008-01-30 10:56:11.0 +0200
@@ -181,11 +181,13 @@ check_terminal:
 
ht = n->ht_down;
sel = 0;
-   if (ht->divisor)
-   sel = 
ht->divisor&u32_hash_fold(*(u32*)(ptr+n->sel.hoff), &n->sel,n->fshift);
 
-   if (!(n->sel.flags&(TC_U32_VAROFFSET|TC_U32_OFFSET|TC_U32_EAT)))
+   if 
(!(n->sel.flags&(TC_U32_VAROFFSET|TC_U32_OFFSET|TC_U32_EAT))) {
+   if (!ht->divisor)
+   goto next_ht;
+   sel = 
ht->divisor&u32_hash_fold(*(u32*)(ptr+n->sel.hoff), &n->sel,n->fshift);
goto next_ht;
+   }
 
if (n->sel.flags&(TC_U32_OFFSET|TC_U32_VAROFFSET)) {
off2 = n->sel.off + 3;
@@ -198,6 +200,9 @@ check_terminal:
off2 = 0;
}
 
+   if (ht->divisor)
+   sel = 
ht->divisor&u32_hash_fold(*(u32*)(ptr+n->sel.hoff), &n->sel,n->fshift);
+
if (ptr < skb_tail_pointer(skb))
goto next_ht;
}