From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] PKT_SCHED: Extended Matches API Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:56:46 +0100 Message-ID: <41F447CE.6030007@trash.net> References: <20050123230012.GB23931@postel.suug.ch> <20050123230132.GC23931@postel.suug.ch> <41F43D6D.30502@trash.net> <20050124004929.GK23931@postel.suug.ch> 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: Thomas Graf In-Reply-To: <20050124004929.GK23931@postel.suug.ch> Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Thomas Graf wrote: >* Patrick McHardy <41F43D6D.30502@trash.net> 2005-01-24 01:12 > > >>gcc assumes likely for ptr != NULL by default. Is there a reason why a match >>wouldn't have a match function ? >> > >There is no reason but ematches might get written by unexperienced people >forgeting to register it. I know, the if partly hides the failure, it's >one of theses case where I have the same arguments for both ways. > I don't care much, but I guess people forgetting to add a match function to an ematch will find other ways to do stupid things :) How about catching it in tcf_em_register ? Regards Patrick