From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH next 0/30] Passing net through the netfilter hooks Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 17:19:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20150917.171904.119452251415625585.davem@davemloft.net> References: <87mvwn18my.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: pablo@netfilter.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: ebiederm@xmission.com Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:46947 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751929AbbIRATG (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Sep 2015 20:19:06 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87mvwn18my.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 19:59:49 -0500 > Pablo, Dave I don't know whose tree this makes more sense to go > through. I am assuming at least initially Pablos as netfilter is > involved. From what I have seen there will be a lot of back and forth > between the netfilter code paths and the routing code paths. I think it might reduce conflicts actually if it went via my net-next tree. Pablo, any objections?