Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Sun, 10 Feb 2019 10:19:57 +0200
From:   Eli Cohen <eli@mellanox.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc:     jhs@mojatatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com, jiri@resnulli.us,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        simon.horman@netronome.com, jakub.kicinski@netronome.com,
        dirk.vandermerwe@netronome.com, francois.theron@netronome.com,
        quentin.monnet@netronome.com, john.hurley@netronome.com,
        edwin.peer@netronome.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: Change TCA_ACT_* to TCA_ID_* to match
 that of TCA_ID_POLICE
Message-ID: <20190210081956.GA18213@nps-server-21.mtl.labs.mlnx>
References: <20190207074549.29861-1-eli@mellanox.com>
 <20190207074549.29861-3-eli@mellanox.com>
 <20190207.100110.1557913033627638063.davem@davemloft.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190207.100110.1557913033627638063.davem@davemloft.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 10:01:10AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Eli Cohen <eli@mellanox.com>
> Date: Thu,  7 Feb 2019 09:45:49 +0200
> 
> > diff --git a/net/sched/act_simple.c b/net/sched/act_simple.c
> > index 902957beceb3..d54cb608dbaf 100644
> > --- a/net/sched/act_simple.c
> > +++ b/net/sched/act_simple.c
> > @@ -19,8 +19,6 @@
> >  #include <net/netlink.h>
> >  #include <net/pkt_sched.h>
> >  
> > -#define TCA_ACT_SIMP 22
> > -
> >  #include <linux/tc_act/tc_defact.h>
> >  #include <net/tc_act/tc_defact.h>
> >  
> 
> I would do this in patch #1.

Sure, that was the intention. It just slipped off my fingers.

Will fix and send a new series.

> Actually, because you didn't, after patch #1 there are two #defines
> evaluated for this macro.  One in pkt_cls.h and one here.
> 
> The only reason the compiler doesn't warn and complain is because the
> definitions are identical.
> 
> Thank you.