From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: POM Xtables??? Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 13:43:33 +0200 Message-ID: <486A1865.40106@trash.net> References: <935fab200806271054oa7c340evbf465b7a9984498b@mail.gmail.com> <4866F152.7030109@riverviewtech.net> <935fab200806300904rc7dc7b2kf58ab7893c3ef20a@mail.gmail.com> <486907EA.60105@trash.net> <48694787.3080906@trash.net> <4869FCE7.9000404@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Jan Engelhardt Cc: Jozsef Kadlecsik , Dave , netfilter@vger.kernel.org Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Tuesday 2008-07-01 11:46, Patrick McHardy wrote: > >> Jozsef Kadlecsik wrote: >>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Patrick McHardy wrote: >>> >>>> - LOGMARK - haven't seen it or can't remember >>> It adds the possibility to log the mark values of the packet/corresponding >>> conntrack entry via syslog. >>> The feature should simply be added to the LOG target, there's no real point >>> to keep a separated target, as far as I see. >> I agree. In fact I already added this to ipt_LOG/ip6t_LOG in >> 2.6.26-rc :) > > You only added the nfmark, and it is printed unconditionally at that, > the latter of which I do not see as thrilling. Seems like it is time > for a new revision? Also I think the two modules should be unified > first. It doesn't need a new revision, it doesn't affect the userspace API in any way. As for the argument of parsers that might not handle this: any parser needs to expect new things to be added at the end of the line, otherwise its giving us no possibility of ever extending the output, which is not reasonable.