From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tomasz Bursztyka Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] netfilter: nft: add queue module Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 13:03:18 +0200 Message-ID: <529C68F6.70002@linux.intel.com> References: <1385808722.4321.19.camel@ice-age2.regit.org> <1385808978-19833-1-git-send-email-eric@regit.org> <1385808978-19833-2-git-send-email-eric@regit.org> <529C2B33.9020205@linux.intel.com> <1385976728.19102.7.camel@ice-age2.regit.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: pablo@netfilter.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: Eric Leblond Return-path: Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:5515 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753198Ab3LBLD3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Dec 2013 06:03:29 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1385976728.19102.7.camel@ice-age2.regit.org> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Eric, >> Why not declaring them in an enum, as for nft_rule_compat_flags, >> >nft_set_flags or nft_set_elem_flags? > Simple answer: It was not an enum in the original NFQUEUE code;) > > Real answer: We have only two values, third one is a mask. So it may be > a bit overkill to use an enum here. I understand, but this would be diverging from what has been the "rule" so far. It's a minor detail I agree. Btw, nft_set_elem_flags owns only one value ^^ Tomasz