[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240110140121.GA28014@breakpoint.cc>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 15:01:21 +0100
From: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To: Pavel Tikhomirov <ptikhomirov@...tuozzo.com>
Cc: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] netfilter: nfnetlink_log: use proper helper for
fetching physinif
Pavel Tikhomirov <ptikhomirov@...tuozzo.com> wrote:
> On 10/01/2024 21:33, Florian Westphal wrote:
> > Pavel Tikhomirov <ptikhomirov@...tuozzo.com> wrote:
> > I think you can drop this patch and make the last patch pass
> > nf_bridge_info->physinif directly.
>
> The whole Idea of this patch was to replace nf_bridge_get_physindev with
> nf_bridge_get_physinif before the patch which propagates net, so that we
> don't need to propagate net first and then in later patch remove it when
> replacing with nf_bridge_get_physinif.
>
> But I spoiled it by forgetting to remove net propagation to
> __build_packet_message...
>
> Is it ok if I leave this patch as is, but instead remove:
Yes, thats fine.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists