From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44BA0C433DF for ; Sat, 13 Jun 2020 22:54:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2189A20789 for ; Sat, 13 Jun 2020 22:54:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=uniroma2.it header.i=@uniroma2.it header.b="+2tRaCtZ"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=uniroma2.it header.i=@uniroma2.it header.b="ie30d2N7" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726803AbgFMWyS (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Jun 2020 18:54:18 -0400 Received: from smtp.uniroma2.it ([160.80.6.16]:42851 "EHLO smtp.uniroma2.it" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726272AbgFMWyR (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Jun 2020 18:54:17 -0400 Received: from smtpauth-2019-1.uniroma2.it (smtpauth.uniroma2.it [160.80.5.46]) by smtp-2015.uniroma2.it (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-8) with ESMTP id 05DMrxR4019350; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 00:54:04 +0200 Received: from lubuntu-18.04 (unknown [160.80.103.126]) by smtpauth-2019-1.uniroma2.it (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 56E29120069; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 00:53:54 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=uniroma2.it; s=ed201904; t=1592088834; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=/zs0CUi+Oz0j3LEZd44hCt+whNDO8jzzRMXHT/xwzzo=; b=+2tRaCtZyfIdpFZnhIrndpLvrS9HwWUL+4SKJaDpnV88xBZ1ekyo3yRw6iGPQ4TE94BWGa whgux0Qtuoe7yACg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=uniroma2.it; s=rsa201904; t=1592088834; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=/zs0CUi+Oz0j3LEZd44hCt+whNDO8jzzRMXHT/xwzzo=; b=ie30d2N771yY6UC4FH/KLpB+OZIKYdffd3BV3Bcv0bP+eLQTWYDcZwmUdkTF1aOhbtQqOH leoG4MKAfNO8EfWW5OlguXjY7cfm6bmm092PAeLrVzMXooGboKiIVZ5cA8C43MclHPGGqv aMuo/TZFSsX6vDT3gUpe1BR3dFVFqRS/Kexwbbhf+HBhCmNhLx6ycz7yTs6QQ7z9Ig4I5W 7SDS/jMh5fziZzfwrj3zIoJDhD1URwY6GLH5W8+L6eTldmoDhvSRSRWx5XRQ+Vw9/fKQno 4vlbAsYGoQEMYvSe92W1OlBZMd4SYhlpuf7m0rVR6XpPO7QFiSIvrxRjr05Szw== Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2020 00:53:53 +0200 From: Andrea Mayer To: Stephen Hemminger Cc: David Ahern , "David S. Miller" , Shrijeet Mukherjee , Jakub Kicinski , Shuah Khan , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, Donald Sharp , Roopa Prabhu , Dinesh Dutt , Stefano Salsano , Paolo Lungaroni , Ahmed Abdelsalam , Andrea Mayer Subject: Re: [RFC,net-next, 2/5] vrf: track associations between VRF devices and tables Message-Id: <20200614005353.fb4083bed70780feee2fd19a@uniroma2.it> In-Reply-To: <20200613122859.4f5e2761@hermes.lan> References: <20200612164937.5468-1-andrea.mayer@uniroma2.it> <20200612164937.5468-3-andrea.mayer@uniroma2.it> <20200613122859.4f5e2761@hermes.lan> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.5.1 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.100.0 at smtp-2015 X-Virus-Status: Clean Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Stephen, thanks for your questions. On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 12:28:59 -0700 Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > + > > + * Conversely, shared_table is decreased when a vrf is de-associated > > + * from a table with exactly two associated vrfs. > > + */ > > + int shared_tables; > > Should this be unsigned? > Should it be a fixed size? Yes. I think an u32 would be reasonable for the shared_table. What do you think? Andrea