From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: [PATCH] add new iptables ipt_connbytes match Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 12:09:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20050812.120904.88476024.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20050812153730.GR18580@rama.de.gnumonks.org> <20050812182355.GF22901@wotan.suse.de> <20050812190343.GW18580@rama.de.gnumonks.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org, kaber@trash.net, ak@suse.de Return-path: To: laforge@netfilter.org In-Reply-To: <20050812190343.GW18580@rama.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: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: Harald Welte Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:03:43 +0200 > Ok, I hope everyone is fine with this patch: It is, but I did not add the connbytes patch into my tree so I can't use this patch as-is. That's why I replied "this is broken, fix u64 alignment" to the connbytes patch instead of "applied, thanks" :-) Please untangle this stuff. This is how we end up with a big mess of noise changesets in the tree, due to how we have been putting half-working changes in first then a bunch of "fixup" patches. I'd like to avoid that, because I then spend a lot of time redoing things when I rebase the tree later. So in this case, send me the aligned_u64 patch seperately which doesn't assume connbytes is in the tree. Then another patch which adds connbytes with the proper usage of aligned_u64. Thanks Harald.