[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2019 17:19:39 +0200
From: Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
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, Jun 06, 2019 at 08:14:40AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> 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.
I think we had discussed something like this but the problem why we
can't do this stems from how the sysctl-table stuff is implemented.
I distinctly remember that it couldn't be done with a flag due to that.
Christian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists