Re: [LARTC] [PATCH] mark in u32

[Andy Furniss <andy.furniss@dsl.pipex.com>]

Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 14:59:44 +0000
> Andy Furniss <andy.furniss@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Catalin(ux aka Dino) BOIE wrote:
>>
>>>Hello, Stephen, List!
>>>
>>>Attached is the patch for iproute2 to add the possibility to use fwmark 
>>>in u32 filters.
>>>The kernel part was included in 2.6.10.
>>>
>>>Please apply!
>>>Thank you!
>>>
>>>For more info:
>>>- Kernel patch (not needed for 2.6.10): 
>>>http://kernel.umbrella.ro/net/mark_in_u32/net-match-nfmark-in-u32.patch
>>>
>>>- Examples:
>>>http://kernel.umbrella.ro/net/mark_in_u32/examples.txt
>>>
>>>---
>>>Catalin(ux aka Dino) BOIE
>>>catab at deuroconsult.ro
>>>http://kernel.umbrella.ro/
>>
>>That looks handy :-) Do you know why fw mark doesn't work with policers 
>>in 2.6 (assuming it's not just me)
>>
>>To stephen - I may be wrong here but in the readme it says that default 
>>kernel include is /usr/src/linux/include but if I grep for 
>>KERNEL_INCLUDE I see :-
>>
>>./Makefile:KERNEL_INCLUDE:=/usr/include
>>./Makefile:CFLAGS = $(CCOPTS) -I$(KERNEL_INCLUDE) -I../include $(DEFINES)
>>./Makefile:     ./configure $(KERNEL_INCLUDE)
>>./README:KERNEL_INCLUDE should point to correct linux kernel include 
>>directory.
> 
> 
> I changed away from Alexey's old KERNEL_INCLUDE, because it was necessary
> for the package to be able to be compiled without depending on the kernel
> header files. There were cases where new features needed to be compiled on
> old systems where the definition was missing.  Think about building current
> iproute2 util's with 2.4.20 includes.
> 
> The current solution (though less than ideal) was to put stripped down
> version of the routing specific includes into the iproute2 package.
> 

Ahh I see, thanks for the explanation.

Andy.


_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/