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, 23 Feb 2006 10:43:32 +0100 Message-ID: <43FD83C4.6030106@trash.net> References: <43F44794.1080203@trash.net> <20060216100504.GI15587@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> <43F4DC55.8030405@trash.net> <200602211216.k1LCG18I024522@toshiba.co.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: laforge@netfilter.org, netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org, pablo@netfilter.org Return-path: To: Yasuyuki KOZAKAI In-Reply-To: <200602211216.k1LCG18I024522@toshiba.co.jp> 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 Yasuyuki KOZAKAI wrote: > From: Patrick McHardy > Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 21:11:01 +0100 > >>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. > > > 'l3num' field in expectation mask may be 0xff. Then the new field is > necessary so that kernel can pass the "exact value" in it to userspace. > > But, I don't know whether userspace really wants to know the exact value > in it or not. I assumed, yes, but if it is not ture, I'll agree to Patrick. My point was that a mask is pretty meaningless without the thing it masks, which is the tuple (except maybe a mask of all-zeros). The tuple itself already contains the correct protocol number.