From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans Schillstrom Subject: Re: [v2 PATCH 1/2] NETFILTER module xt_hmark new target for HASH based fw Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 10:19:42 +0100 Message-ID: <201111141019.43423.hans@schillstrom.com> References: <0hivdsb.f18682ec9367f08c76301d993553f1b8@obelix.schillstrom.com> <20111108105110.GA15798@1984> <20111113170528.GB16851@1984> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Hans Schillstrom , kaber@trash.net, jengelh@medozas.de, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Pablo Neira Ayuso Return-path: Received: from smtp-gw21.han.skanova.net ([81.236.55.21]:39553 "EHLO smtp-gw21.han.skanova.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753875Ab1KNJTt (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Nov 2011 04:19:49 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20111113170528.GB16851@1984> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sunday, November 13, 2011 18:05:28 Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > BTW, I think you should split xt_HMARK to ipt_HMARK and ip6t_HMARK > (see recent Florian Westphal patches regarding reserve lookup for > instance). > > The IPv4 and IPv6 parts for HMARK look so different that I don't think > it makes sense to keep them into one single xt_HMARK thing with all > those conditional ifdefs for IPV6. > Ok I'll do that, for some reason a thought it was better with one module. -- Hans