[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121207072249.GA10911@1984>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 08:22:49 +0100
From: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
Cc: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...i.de>,
netfilter-devel <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH rfc] netfilter: two xtables matches
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 04:12:10PM -0500, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:22 AM, Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 09:00:36PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> >> On Wednesday 2012-12-05 20:28, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> >>
> >> >Somehow, the first part of this email went missing. Not critical,
> >> >but for completeness:
> >> >
> >> >These two patches each add an xtables match.
> >> >
> >> >The xt_priority match is a straighforward addition in the style of
> >> >xt_mark, adding the option to filter on one more sk_buff field. I
> >> >have an immediate application for this. The amount of code (in
> >> >kernel + userspace) to add a single check proved quite large.
> >>
> >> Hm so yeah, can't we just place this in xt_mark.c?
> >
> > I don't feel this belongs to xt_mark at all.
>
> Do you have other concerns, or can I resubmit as is for merging in a
> few days if no one raises additional issues?
>
> For this and netfilter changes in general: should these patches be
> against git://1984.lsi.us.es/nf-next instead of net-next? This patch
> likely applies cleanly there, but I haven't tried yet. Thanks.
Please, against nf-next since this has to go throuh the netfilter
tree.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists