On Monday 2010-08-02 18:01, Patrick McHardy wrote: >>>> + if (info->flags & XT_LENGTH_LAYER3) >>>> + len = ntohs(iph->tot_len); >>>> + else if (info->flags & XT_LENGTH_LAYER4) >>>> + len = ntohs(iph->tot_len) - par->thoff; >>>> + else if (info->flags & XT_LENGTH_LAYER5) >>>> + hit = xtlength_layer5(&len, skb, iph->protocol, par->thoff); >>>> + else if (info->flags & XT_LENGTH_LAYER7) >>>> + hit = xtlength_layer7(&len, skb, iph->protocol, par->thoff); >>>> + if (!hit) >>>> + return false; >>>> +} >>> >>> This serie of tests is expensive and useless.[...] >> Not really[...] >> >> The compiler is smart enough to see that a run of if tests against >> the same variable with different values is transformable into a >> switch statement. > >They are mutually exclusive though, so using a bitmask doesn't make >much sense. Right. Since that's been already fixed in the submission, can it go in? :) -- 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
