Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 01:27:03PM CEST, jhs@mojatatu.com wrote:

On 17-07-24 07:34 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:

quoted

Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 03:35:46AM CEST, jhs@mojatatu.com wrote:

quoted

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com>

quoted

quoted

@@ -128,6 +129,11 @@ static int tcf_dump_walker(struct tcf_hashinfo *hinfo, struct sk_buff *skb,

			if (index < s_i)
				continue;

+			if (jiffy_since &&
+			    time_after(jiffy_since,
+				       (unsigned long)p->tcfa_tm.lastuse))

You don't need to check jiffy_since==0. Also, nicer  ^^ this with a space :)

Assuming that time_after() would work fine for jiffy_since being zero,
but:
wouldnt it be more efficient to just not call time_after() altogether?

time_after is pretty trivial. But your call.

quoted

Other than this, looks fine.

Ok, please no more changes - I am exhausted ;-> So speak for this
update or send patches afterwards if you dont like something.

cheers,
jamal