Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Thanks for adding tests. > > On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 01:14:13AM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote: > > diff --git a/tests/py/inet/tcpopt.t b/tests/py/inet/tcpopt.t > > index a42ecd250a9c..94ad3fc4c645 100644 > > --- a/tests/py/inet/tcpopt.t > > +++ b/tests/py/inet/tcpopt.t > > @@ -38,3 +38,6 @@ tcp option sack window 1;fail > > > > tcp option window exists;ok > > tcp option window missing;ok > > + > > +tcp option maxseg size set 1360;ok;tcp option mss set 1360 > > This is a follow up, related to 5/7. > > Why do we need this assymetry at all? it is same 'meta iif ethx' vs 'iif ethx' I can drop the 'tcp option <option type> <field>' syntax which means we need to add extra grammar for all 'tcp option set' type/field combinations that we want to support. Or we can drop the compact representation, but i find 'tcp option maxseg size' to be uglier than 'tcp option mss'. -- 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
