From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pablo Neira Ayuso Subject: Re: [PATCH rfc] netfilter: two xtables matches Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 08:22:49 +0100 Message-ID: <20121207072249.GA10911@1984> References: <1354735339-13402-1-git-send-email-willemb@google.com> <20121206052246.GA2905@1984> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jan Engelhardt , netfilter-devel , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet , David Miller , Patrick McHardy To: Willem de Bruijn Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org 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 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.