[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9498ff5d-7877-37b6-b72e-01d4bf40501a@mellanox.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 13:39:41 +0200
From: Paul Blakey <paulb@...lanox.com>
To: Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>
CC: <paulb@...lanox.com>, Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Hadar Hen Zion <hadarh@...lanox.com>,
Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
Roi Dayan <roid@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2 net-next] tc: flower: support matching flags
On 18/01/2017 14:41, Jiri Benc wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 12:55:59 +0100, Jiri Benc wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 13:51:13 +0200, Paul Blakey wrote:
>>> It mimics the kernel packing of flags, I have no problem either way
>>> (flags, or ip_flags/tcp_flags pairs), what do you think jiri?
>>
>> What Simon says makes sense to me. ip_flags and tcp_flags sounds like
>> the best solution so far (even better than my original suggestion).
>
> Is there any progress with the follow up patch? I don't think we want
> iproute2 with the magic numbers to be released.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jiri
>
Hi,
I've posted a patch:
"[PATCH iproute2 net-next] tc: flower: Refactor matching flags to be
more user friendly"
Thanks,
Paul.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists