From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6 5/5]: act_api: mark some functions static/remove unused function Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 17:24:24 +0100 Message-ID: <418A57B8.9040205@trash.net> References: <4189CB70.3060703@trash.net> <1099576602.1039.151.camel@jzny.localdomain> <418A4AA0.8070609@trash.net> <1099583639.1081.30.camel@jzny.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "David S. Miller" , netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: hadi@cyberus.ca In-Reply-To: <1099583639.1081.30.camel@jzny.localdomain> Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org jamal wrote: >On Thu, 2004-11-04 at 10:28, Patrick McHardy wrote: > >>Ok, here is the same patch without removing tc_lookup_action_id. >>It is instead surrounded by #if 0. >> > > >Why is this function bothering you? ;-> >Why do you need to put the #if 0? > Because the compiler will warn about an unused static function. >>- move the functions from include/net/pkt_act.h to act_generic.c >> > >Some of the larger ones make sense to move. Whats the main reason for >moving them? > I was talking about the larger ones. There are multiple large inline functions that are used by all(?) actions. >These two make sense. I need help eyeballing the iptables stuff. >I commented out some of the refcount attempts; also i think quiet a >few targets are not friendly in getting accessed by anything other than >iptables; I was going at some point fix them and send you guys patches. >Maybe you can help me in this area as well. > > I can't think of a reason why targets would mind beeing used by ipt, but I'll look out for problems. >>Is there already userspace-code for anything besides gact ? >>I would like to test my changes. >> >> >> > >Stephen is probably stalled somewhere because he hasnt been sucking in >my updates to iproute2. >I have the latest and greatest on my test machine at home. But here >are tc updates for ipt and mirred that i could find on my laptop. > > Thanks. >The ipt patch needs iptables libraries and may not work with latest >iptables (although the one at home will surely work). The problem is >some of the iptables functions were updated. It would be nice if i didnt >have to maintain my own variants in user space. > > I can't see a way to avoid this currently. Regards Patrick