On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 10:41:03PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: > On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 03:28:16PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > > > On Wednesday 2010-07-21 15:21, Simon Horman wrote: > > >> On Wednesday 2010-07-21 03:21, Simon Horman wrote: > > >> >> + > > >> >> +#define XT_IPVS_IPVS_PROPERTY (1 << 0) /* all other options imply this one */ > > >> >> +#define XT_IPVS_PROTO (1 << 1) > > >> >> +#define XT_IPVS_VADDR (1 << 2) > > >> >> +#define XT_IPVS_VPORT (1 << 3) > > >> >> +#define XT_IPVS_DIR (1 << 4) > > >> >> +#define XT_IPVS_METHOD (1 << 5) > > >> >> +#define XT_IPVS_VPORTCTL (1 << 6) > > >> >> +#define XT_IPVS_MASK ((1 << 7) - 1) > > >> >> +#define XT_IPVS_ONCE_MASK (XT_IPVS_MASK & ~XT_IPVS_IPVS_PROPERTY) > > >> > > >> Can't these just be an enum? > > > > > >More than one option can be used at once - they form a mini bitmap - > > >so no, I don't think we can use an enum. > > > > An enum does not dictate that you cannot combine values of it with itself. > > > > enum { A = 1 << 0, B = 1 << 0, }; > > unsigned int flags = A | B; > > > > is perfectly fine, which is what other modules do. > > Understood. I'll make it so. Hi Jan, I must confess that I'm not familiar with using enum in this way. Can I confirm that you are suggesting the following? enum { XT_IPVS_IPVS_PROPERTY = 1 << 0, /* all other options imply this one */ XT_IPVS_PROTO = 1 << 1, XT_IPVS_VADDR = 1 << 2, XT_IPVS_VPORT = 1 << 3, XT_IPVS_DIR = 1 << 4, XT_IPVS_METHOD = 1 << 5, XT_IPVS_VPORTCTL = 1 << 6, XT_IPVS_MASK = (1 << 7) - 1, XT_IPVS_ONCE_MASK = (XT_IPVS_MASK & ~XT_IPVS_IPVS_PROPERTY) }; -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html