[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFC] meta ematch

To: Thomas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RFC] meta ematch
From: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 16 Jan 2005 10:37:54 -0500
Cc: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <>
Organization: jamalopolous
References: <> <1105363582.1041.162.camel@jzny.localdomain> <> <1105394738.1085.63.camel@jzny.localdomain> <> <> <> <> <> <1105887519.1097.597.camel@jzny.localdomain> <>
Reply-to: hadi@xxxxxxxxxx
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 2005-01-16 at 10:09, Thomas Graf wrote:

> The lvalue will be TCF_META_ID_INDEV and your rvalue will be
> TCF_META_TYPE_VAR with "eth0" as payload(TCF_EM_META_RVALUE).
> TCF_EM_META_LVALUE will be unused in this case.

ok - i get it. So the rvalue is basically just the data that needs to be
compared against. rvalue confused me a little. If you had called it
meta_data i would have got it right away. But now that you explain it,
makes sense. 

I am not sure iam following yet:

So in the case of indev, you would need to 
- get indev ifindex from skb
- get indev name from skb
- compare the two??

Actually it may be a little overkill to have those two as separate
entities with their own headers etc, no? Why not just store it in the
same fashion you transported it from/to user space? 

I will start looking at the code


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>