From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pablo Neira Ayuso Subject: Re: [PATCH nft] expr: do not suppress OP_EQ when RHS is bitmask type Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 17:23:44 +0200 Message-ID: <20140404152307.GA3278@localhost> References: <1395094118-32580-1-git-send-email-fw@strlen.de> <20140404081723.GA3574@localhost> <20140404083328.GE6769@breakpoint.cc> <20140404094433.GA4275@localhost> <20140404120946.GD27267@macbook.localnet> <20140404140430.GB28581@localhost> <20140404142333.GA28798@macbook.localnet> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Florian Westphal , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: Patrick McHardy Return-path: Received: from mail.us.es ([193.147.175.20]:34751 "EHLO mail.us.es" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752683AbaDDPXv (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Apr 2014 11:23:51 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140404142333.GA28798@macbook.localnet> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 04:24:40PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote: > > > If an equality relation is explicitly specified by the user, it also needs > > > to be printed. Florian's change is all we need from what I can tell. > > > > Then we have to document that in some cases key == value and key > > value are equivalent, and when it comes to flags it is not, which is > > still rare to me. > > Sure. I think I already have it in my documentation. Its basically simply > documenting what the implicit op means in which context. OK, please go ahead push it, thanks.