On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:22 AM, Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 09:00:36PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote: >> On Wednesday 2012-12-05 20:28, Willem de Bruijn wrote: >> >> >Somehow, the first part of this email went missing. Not critical, >> >but for completeness: >> > >> >These two patches each add an xtables match. >> > >> >The xt_priority match is a straighforward addition in the style of >> >xt_mark, adding the option to filter on one more sk_buff field. I >> >have an immediate application for this. The amount of code (in >> >kernel + userspace) to add a single check proved quite large. >> >> Hm so yeah, can't we just place this in xt_mark.c? > > I don't feel this belongs to xt_mark at all. Do you have other concerns, or can I resubmit as is for merging in a few days if no one raises additional issues? For this and netfilter changes in general: should these patches be against git://1984.lsi.us.es/nf-next instead of net-next? This patch likely applies cleanly there, but I haven't tried yet. Thanks. -- 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
