Received: by 2002:a25:8b12:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id i18csp1200762ybl; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 13:34:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxGP2tFibds8CupCrf5RnFRPLuvuvJyz02mr8SMbZ62JMhJDTb8YxeIDVbttNAY917uJ+Kp X-Received: by 2002:a65:64c6:: with SMTP id t6mr14797190pgv.323.1567197299256; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 13:34:59 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1567197299; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=W4cPz+ceQllQ1wIr1BIL0G+Qz/eFLyUzxBSRDABHdjjPDGffPBIydtqYVwL3clE6/S o6pSmXcYomfhdjdZS6emrRfPRm09SdPgYARaQnlqiyR8TGnc2ZZF1Sr8ociXMnZPvxz0 jgAX5S06RcTCPRKarP64ZA3YRS37VWkuaLDY6RRM1XXrtwzqYfeg4djR6D7jl3+ol0Er Xw3Df/8OPMkcQP7DI7xpUFbj+h6Y6aWuQ5LWEI+fAZHhsnuMABtunJWLATKujCOg6bHV VJ+0nn7dXtpOQYIEvcRzt0J0IuUI2FsnmvEY5tl19Gtv+ABZoXcEEDnQ+3lMkWJJvGLe LQ+A== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :references:in-reply-to:from:subject:cc:to:message-id:date; bh=u69a9Oxe2f1AHMeMV1NeF98QR+e9YS7Ugi+Lo5DyZK0=; b=Y1cJtjxlAg9r4Tk9zeBmBeRoJRwmXEqmXQdH5I3ZGUpgyun8koc+yNbqHbtrA6IIcx PFhHkn3jZADBwwnBHMBSDyeJBdqCGqAZvu/rZgMd09e7Ah2pK2g/Dx+jrLLi7pojsiSa EvqRiLSRCPjwsBGHw/xvpWVyy2vwwmcyvRA5W+GB53ZjZmBvwu3w/PHgT0lsteIXFpO2 +kLRNfNlviIxN6Dtd3JL/aJssYIEwoaY28xSs76TdEaImTpiUYJMHuVdpDOTZLmCFtiF EUozwBFKS96jS3iyxeyUmRKfFHwMpz8cUfBoqRqloECmIv/S8nc4RvtGXbsg0JdbYCMQ pqDA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id t21si4931156pga.294.2019.08.30.13.34.43; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 13:34:59 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728230AbfH3Udj (ORCPT + 99 others); Fri, 30 Aug 2019 16:33:39 -0400 Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.9]:41460 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727304AbfH3Udi (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Aug 2019 16:33:38 -0400 Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:601:9f80:35cd::d71]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: davem-davemloft) by shards.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 04055154FB632; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 13:33:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 13:33:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20190830.133335.323827182628557013.davem@davemloft.net> To: zdai@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com, jhs@mojatatu.com, jiri@resnulli.us, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, zdai@us.ibm.com Subject: Re: [v2] net_sched: act_police: add 2 new attributes to support police 64bit rate and peakrate From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <1567195432.20025.18.camel@oc5348122405> References: <1567191974-11578-1-git-send-email-zdai@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1567195432.20025.18.camel@oc5348122405> X-Mailer: Mew version 6.8 on Emacs 26.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.12 (shards.monkeyblade.net [149.20.54.216]); Fri, 30 Aug 2019 13:33:38 -0700 (PDT) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: "David Z. Dai" Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 15:03:52 -0500 > I have the impression that last parameter num value should be larger > than the attribute num value in 2nd parameter (TC_POLICE_RATE64 in this > case). The argument in question is explicitly the "padding" value. Please explain in detail where you got the impression that the argument has to be larger?