Re: [RFC] meta ematch

[Thomas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxx>]

* jamal <1105887519.1097.597.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2005-01-16 09:58
> On Fri, 2005-01-14 at 10:14, Thomas Graf wrote:
> > 
> > Here's a revised patch. I fixed the numeric comparison issues and
> > added meta_obj instead of using meta_data to give a better impression
> > on the difference of a comparable object and meta data definitions.
> 
> I scanned the code very quickly; lets start with the big picture then i
> will send some more comments:
> Did i understand this correctly that a metamatch MUST have a lvalue +
> rvalue pair?

They MAY have bove.


> What if all i wanted to say was 
> ..
> ematch indev eth0
> 
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.