On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:01:27 +0800 Li Zefan <lizf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Minoru Usui wrote: > > On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 06:19:19 -0400 > > Thomas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 12:00:35PM +0900, Minoru Usui wrote: > >>> Actually, In tc <-> kernel I/F (which uses netlink), tc sets classid to hexadecimal style not X:Y style. > >>> X:Y style is result of translating by tc command. > >>> > >>> I thought this patch was very useful at first, but it's not necessary to implementing to the kernel. > >>> This function can be implemented on user space if we need. > >>> And we can also keep compatibility of net_cls.classid I/F. :-) > >>> > >>> I drop this patch. I'm sorry for confusing a lot of people. > >> I found this patch to be extremely useful if it wasn't to break > >> compatibility but that issue can be resolved by accepting both > >> formats easly. > > > > Thank you for agreeing my patch. > > > > I think you said write format only. Am I right? > > What do you think about read format? > > Do you think you should keep read format as current implementation? > > > > I think we should need to unify read/write format, if we make cls_cgroup is more userfriendly. > > Because some of people are confused about having to read their write value as different format. > > (Unfortunately, current implementation is so...) > > > > But this approach breaks compatibility, so I drop this patch. > > How about adding a new control file net_cls.tc_classid? > net_cls.classid's core purpose is to read/write classid. If we add net_cls.tc_classid, its core purpose is same. Their difference is only read/write value of expression. Is this approach ok? -- Minoru Usui <usui@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
