On Jan 4 2008 15:59, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>> -#define XT_HASHLIMIT_HASH_DIP 0x0001
>> -#define XT_HASHLIMIT_HASH_DPT 0x0002
>> -#define XT_HASHLIMIT_HASH_SIP 0x0004
>> -#define XT_HASHLIMIT_HASH_SPT 0x0008
>> +enum {
>> + XT_HASHLIMIT_HASH_DIP = 1 << 0,
>> + XT_HASHLIMIT_HASH_DPT = 1 << 1,
>> + XT_HASHLIMIT_HASH_SIP = 1 << 2,
>> + XT_HASHLIMIT_HASH_SPT = 1 << 3,
>> + XT_HASHLIMIT_INVERT = 1 << 4,
>> +};
>
>
> Do we really need a full new revision for this? It seems simply adding
> the inversion flag would work fine, old userspace code will always
> have it set to zero.
>
Yes we need a new revision, inversion is not the only thing.
The extra fields "uint8_t srcmask, dstmask" have been added to
struct hashlimit_cfg1, which is embedded in xt_hashlimit_mtinfo1.
So we have an actual struct size change to take care of.
(Yes, before I had the srcmask/dstmask idea, I did inversion-only
using revision 0.)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
