From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] Fix expectaction mask dumping, take #3 Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 21:11:01 +0100 Message-ID: <43F4DC55.8030405@trash.net> References: <43EFF176.3070505@netfilter.org> <43F44794.1080203@trash.net> <20060216100504.GI15587@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Netfilter Development Mailinglist , Yasuyuki Kozakai , Pablo Neira Ayuso Return-path: To: Harald Welte In-Reply-To: <20060216100504.GI15587@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> 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 Harald Welte wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 10:36:20AM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote: > > >>I'm not sure I understand. The new attribute still contains the same >>value as the netlink header, doesn't it? So userspace should currently >>have at least two possibilities to get the correct value: >> >>- use the value from the netlink header >>- use the value from the tuple that comes with the mask, as the first >> part of your patch does. This seems most logically to me since the >> mask and the tuple belong together. > > > I still dream about a connection with one end in ipv4 space and the > other in ipv6. If we ever want to cover such a model, then the tuple > needs to include l3num. Yes, but until then it looks totally redundant. Since the bandwidth of netlink is limited, I think we shouldn't add new attributes without really needing them.