From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Massimiliano Hofer Subject: Re: condition for 2.6.16 Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 15:18:58 +0200 Message-ID: <200604281518.59463.max@nucleus.it> References: <200604201919.19246.max@nucleus.it> <200604281444.50982.max@nucleus.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Patrick McHardy , Jozsef Kadlecsik Return-path: To: netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Errors-To: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org On Friday 28 April 2006 2:58 pm, Jozsef Kadlecsik wrote: > Why don't you choose an array and its indices? Array size could be > specified by module parameter if the default were not sufficient for > someone. I would need a way to get the index. If I put information back in the rule descriptor I can just store a pointer (the ultimate array index). If I don't touch the descriptor I'm stuck with a pointer to the descriptor and any information I can obtain with it, but no unique identifier that is immediately be used as an index in an array. -- Saluti, Massimiliano Hofer Nucleus