On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 02:12:51PM +0000, Patrick McHardy wrote: > On 05.03, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 02:05:32PM +0000, Patrick McHardy wrote: > > > On 05.03, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > > > Set the same as we use for chain names, it should be enough. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > @Patrick: I'm planning to add per-table information after the name field, this > > > > will make it easier and this stays consistent to what we have in chains and > > > > sets (and other new object we'll add). I wouldn't expect people using larger > > > > names than this limit. > > > > > > What kind of information are we talking about? > > > > The hardware offload stuff, we'll need to keep a reference to the > > net_device *dev in the table, to call this from the commit path. But I > > can keep this in that batch if you prefer to have a larger view on > > this. > > Seems fine to me in either case, a larger name does indeed seem > unnecessary and inconsistent. Thanks. > BTW, what about my patches? :) Waiting for them (especially the > fixes) to make their way to nf-next to continue ... Will send a batch with fixes today. -- 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
