From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH] NETFILTER module xt_hmark new target for HASH MARK Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 14:20:05 +0100 Message-ID: <4D4BFD05.6030003@trash.net> References: <1296740050-6311-1-git-send-email-hans.schillstrom@ericsson.com> <1296740050-6311-2-git-send-email-hans.schillstrom@ericsson.com> <4D4AB2D6.7070302@netfilter.org> <1296742995.6662.57.camel@seasc0214> <4D4ACCCB.8030902@netfilter.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Hans Schillstrom , "jengelh@medozas.de" , "netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "hans@schillstrom.com" To: Pablo Neira Ayuso Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:46523 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752135Ab1BDNUW (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Feb 2011 08:20:22 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4D4ACCCB.8030902@netfilter.org> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 03.02.2011 16:42, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > On 03/02/11 15:23, Hans Schillstrom wrote: >>> If this is accepted, I think this has to be merge with the (already >>> overloaded) MARK target. >> >> I have no opinion about that, others might have. > > Better put it in the MARK target with a new revision. I think that > Patrick is going to ask you this. > > I don't know why I had the impression that MARK is overload, it's > actually fine at a first glance to the code. I don't think we should merge this with the MARK target, I don't want to bloat the simple mark structure with all the parameters needed for this module.