From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roberto Nibali Subject: Re: iptables u32 match code for review/testing/... Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 11:31:53 +0100 Sender: netfilter-devel-admin@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: <3E1BFE19.9020509@tac.ch> References: <200212271854.gBRIsf131987@isis.cs3-inc.com> <20030106125720.GF9467@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> <15897.46884.822054.847738@isis.cs3-inc.com> <20030107185748.GV9467@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> <15899.51201.381520.438520@isis.cs3-inc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ", Harald Welte" , netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org Return-path: To: Don Cohen Errors-To: netfilter-devel-admin@lists.netfilter.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org > > I like the content (code/implementation/idea of having u32). > > The only issue is that it doesn't really fit into the current iptables > > architecture. Why? > > - because it is a whole classification engine on it's own > Why is this bad? I wrote it to do things I wanted to do but didn't > see how. I think that's good. If it subsumes a few others that are > out there, even better. (But it's almost certainly a lot slower than > any more specialized match, so they're still useful.) What's wrong with: http://www.cyberus.ca/~hadi/patches/action/ ? Why couldn't you use some of its code for the classification engine? > But if you do want wide indentation (and don't mind >80 cols) > then here you go: Looks a lot nicer and ledgible to me but I'm not the one in position to criticise coding style. Best regards, Roberto Nibali, ratz -- echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln256%Pln256/snlbx]sb3135071790101768542287578439snlbxq' | dc