Subject: Re: [PATCH net 00/13] cls_u32 cleanups and fixes.

From: Al Viro <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2018 16:48:27 +0100

On Sun, Sep 09, 2018 at 03:15:38PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:

> Umm...  Interesting - TCA_U32_SEL is not the only thing that
> gets ignored there; TCA_U32_MARK gets the same treatment.
> And then there's a lovely question what to do with n->pf -
> it's an array of n->sel.nkeys counters, and apparently we
> want (at least in common cases) to avoid resetting those.
> 
> *If* we declare that ->nkeys mismatch means failure, it's
> all relatively easy to implement.  Alternatively, we could
> declare that selector change means resetting the stats.
> Preferences?

BTW, shouldn't we issue u32_clear_hw_hnode() every time
we destroy an hnode?  It's done on u32_delete(), it's
done (for root ht) on u32_destroy(), but it's not done
for any other hnodes when you remove the entire (not shared)
filter.  Looks fishy...