[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2019 08:14:40 -0700
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To: Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, coreteam@...filter.org,
bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org, tyhicks@...onical.com,
pablo@...filter.org, kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu, fw@...len.de,
roopa@...ulusnetworks.com, nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, richardrose@...gle.com,
vapier@...omium.org, bhthompson@...gle.com, smbarber@...omium.org,
joelhockey@...omium.org, ueberall@...menzentrisch.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND net-next 1/2] br_netfilter: add struct netns_brnf
On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 13:41:41 +0200
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io> wrote:
> +struct netns_brnf {
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SYSCTL
> + struct ctl_table_header *ctl_hdr;
> +#endif
> +
> + /* default value is 1 */
> + int call_iptables;
> + int call_ip6tables;
> + int call_arptables;
> +
> + /* default value is 0 */
> + int filter_vlan_tagged;
> + int filter_pppoe_tagged;
> + int pass_vlan_indev;
> +};
Do you really need to waste four bytes for each
flag value. If you use a u8 that would work just as well.
Bool would also work but the kernel developers frown on bool
in structures.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists