From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libipt_statistic
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:46:34 +0200
Message-ID: <468A371A.3000006@trash.net>
References: <dd45289d0707011710v189ac25j174458fecb0bfb41@mail.gmail.com>	
	<46891294.9030405@trash.net>	
	<dd45289d0707021038p42e1871n200d2c425d50797c@mail.gmail.com>	
	<4689387A.4050207@trash.net>	
	<dd45289d0707021105q6b70c23m45135e0a56ccb5aa@mail.gmail.com>	
	<46894116.9000203@trash.net>	
	<dd45289d0707021210s53005cbfodff90f97f6ed69da@mail.gmail.com>	
	<46894E8C.4070306@trash.net>	
	<dd45289d0707021238i7394ace5g552d8c170f0cb78d@mail.gmail.com>	
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0707022153450.28721@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr>
	<dd45289d0707021309j301444al87a932b8bf810ac2@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@computergmbh.de>,
	Netfilter Development Mailinglist <netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org>
To: NICOLAS BOULIANE <nicboul@gmail.com>
Return-path: <netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org>
In-Reply-To: <dd45289d0707021309j301444al87a932b8bf810ac2@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.netfilter.org/mailman/listinfo/netfilter-devel>,
	<mailto:netfilter-devel-request@lists.netfilter.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: </pipermail/netfilter-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netfilter-devel-request@lists.netfilter.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.netfilter.org/mailman/listinfo/netfilter-devel>,
	<mailto:netfilter-devel-request@lists.netfilter.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org
Errors-To: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org
List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org

NICOLAS BOULIANE wrote:
> On 7/2/07, Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@computergmbh.de> wrote:
> 
>> >Index: libipt_statistic.c
>> >===================================================================
>> >--- libipt_statistic.c (revision 6898)
>> >+++ libipt_statistic.c (working copy)
>> >@@ -113,6 +113,15 @@
>> >       if (flags & 0x8 && info->mode != XT_STATISTIC_MODE_NTH)
>> >               exit_error(PARAMETER_PROBLEM,
>> >                          "--packet can only be used in nth mode");
>> >+      if ((flags & 0x8) && !(flags & 0x4))
>>
>> This could perhaps be
>>
>>         if ((flags & 0xC) == 0x8)
>>
>>
>>         Jan
>> -- 
>>
> 
> same result, less intuitive. why should I do that ?


Indeed. What would make sense is to use a couple of symbolic
constants for the flag values.