On Sat, 17 Jan 2004, Harald Welte wrote: > I think we could push CONNMARK to the mainstream kernel in the next > couple of weeks. Great! > I'd like to discuss one change with you first... that is using the mark > field as a bitmask. > > We had that idea for a very long time, and didn't ever change it for the > skb->nfmark field for the sake of compatibility. > > But now, when introducing a new mark field (the conntrack->mark field), > I'd rather prefer implement matching/setting individual bitmasks from > the beginning. What do you think? Would you be willing to add that > feature, or alternatively don't mind if I'd add the respective changes > myself? It is fine by me. It is a trivial thing to add as the extension is not yet frozen. > Also, please add a Copyright notice including your name and a reference > to the GPL on top of the .c files. Will do. > Another minor cosmetic issue: Could you please update it to use > C99-style structure initializers in the code? Sure. > Last, but not least: We'd need an etry for the iptables(8) manpage. Already there from the beginning, but lost in p-o-m due to the lack of a clear structure on how manpage additions should be maintained for not yet official extensions. (the help is copy-paste from the manpage output) Should I also write a more module like help text for these modules? Btw, any plans on how iptables manpage snippets for extra/not yet submitted matches/targets should be maintained? The requested changes has been done but is not yet tested. Testing should be finished tomorrow when I will submit the changes. Regards Henrik - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
