| Message ID | 20170918193057.37644-1-kraigatgoog@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Implement delete for BPF LPM trie | expand |
From: Craig Gallek <kraigatgoog@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 15:30:54 -0400 > This was previously left as a TODO. Add the implementation and > extend the test to cover it. Series applied, thanks.
On 09/19/2017 10:55 PM, David Miller wrote: > From: Craig Gallek <kraigatgoog@gmail.com> > Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 15:30:54 -0400 > >> This was previously left as a TODO. Add the implementation and >> extend the test to cover it. > > Series applied, thanks. > Hmm, I think these patches need some more discussion regarding the IM nodes handling, see the reply I sent an hour ago. Could you wait for that before pushing your tree? Thanks, Daniel
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Daniel Mack <daniel@zonque.org> wrote: > On 09/19/2017 10:55 PM, David Miller wrote: >> From: Craig Gallek <kraigatgoog@gmail.com> >> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 15:30:54 -0400 >> >>> This was previously left as a TODO. Add the implementation and >>> extend the test to cover it. >> >> Series applied, thanks. >> > > Hmm, I think these patches need some more discussion regarding the IM > nodes handling, see the reply I sent an hour ago. Could you wait for > that before pushing your tree? I can follow up with a patch to implement your suggestion. It's really just an efficiency improvement, though, so I think it's ok to handle independently. (Sorry, I haven't had a chance to play with the implementation details yet). Craig
From: Craig Gallek <kraigatgoog@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 17:16:13 -0400 > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Daniel Mack <daniel@zonque.org> wrote: >> On 09/19/2017 10:55 PM, David Miller wrote: >>> From: Craig Gallek <kraigatgoog@gmail.com> >>> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 15:30:54 -0400 >>> >>>> This was previously left as a TODO. Add the implementation and >>>> extend the test to cover it. >>> >>> Series applied, thanks. >>> >> >> Hmm, I think these patches need some more discussion regarding the IM >> nodes handling, see the reply I sent an hour ago. Could you wait for >> that before pushing your tree? > > I can follow up with a patch to implement your suggestion. It's > really just an efficiency improvement, though, so I think it's ok to > handle independently. (Sorry, I haven't had a chance to play with the > implementation details yet). Sorry, I thought the core implementation had been agreed upon and the series was OK. All that was asked for were simplifications and/or optimization which could be done via follow-up patches. It's already pushed out to my tree, so I would need to do a real revert. I hope that won't be necessary.
On 09/19/2017 11:29 PM, David Miller wrote: > From: Craig Gallek <kraigatgoog@gmail.com> > Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 17:16:13 -0400 > >> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Daniel Mack <daniel@zonque.org> wrote: >>> On 09/19/2017 10:55 PM, David Miller wrote: >>>> From: Craig Gallek <kraigatgoog@gmail.com> >>>> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 15:30:54 -0400 >>>> >>>>> This was previously left as a TODO. Add the implementation and >>>>> extend the test to cover it. >>>> >>>> Series applied, thanks. >>>> >>> >>> Hmm, I think these patches need some more discussion regarding the IM >>> nodes handling, see the reply I sent an hour ago. Could you wait for >>> that before pushing your tree? >> >> I can follow up with a patch to implement your suggestion. It's >> really just an efficiency improvement, though, so I think it's ok to >> handle independently. (Sorry, I haven't had a chance to play with the >> implementation details yet). > > Sorry, I thought the core implementation had been agreed upon and the > series was OK. All that was asked for were simplifications and/or > optimization which could be done via follow-up patches. > > It's already pushed out to my tree, so I would need to do a real > revert. > > I hope that won't be necessary. > Nah, it's okay I guess. I trust Craig to send follow-up patches. After all, efficiency is what this whole exercise is all about, so I think it should be done correctly :) Thanks, Daniel
From: Craig Gallek <kraig@google.com> This was previously left as a TODO. Add the implementation and extend the test to cover it. Craig Gallek (3): bpf: Implement map_delete_elem for BPF_MAP_TYPE_LPM_TRIE bpf: Add uniqueness invariant to trivial lpm test implementation bpf: Test deletion in BPF_MAP_TYPE_LPM_TRIE kernel/bpf/lpm_trie.c | 80 +++++++++++- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_lpm_map.c | 201 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- 2 files changed, 273 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)