Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list netdev); Sun, 23 Jan 2005 16:59:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from b.mx.projectdream.org (eth0-0.arisu.projectdream.org [194.158.4.191]) by oss.sgi.com (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j0O0xT4V003643 for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2005 16:59:30 -0800 Received: from postel.suug.ch (postel.suug.ch [195.134.158.23]) (using TLSv1 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by b.mx.projectdream.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D45885; Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:59:07 +0100 (CET) Received: by postel.suug.ch (Postfix, from userid 10001) id B34DA1C0EA; Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:59:50 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:59:50 +0100 From: Thomas Graf To: Patrick McHardy Cc: "David S. Miller" , netdev@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] PKT_SCHED: Extended Matches API Message-ID: <20050124005950.GO23931@postel.suug.ch> References: <20050123230012.GB23931@postel.suug.ch> <20050123230132.GC23931@postel.suug.ch> <41F43D6D.30502@trash.net> <20050124004929.GK23931@postel.suug.ch> <41F447CE.6030007@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <41F447CE.6030007@trash.net> X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.80/650/Sun Jan 2 19:00:02 2005 clamav-milter version 0.80j on 127.0.0.1 X-Virus-Status: Clean X-archive-position: 692 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com X-original-sender: tgraf@suug.ch Precedence: bulk X-list: netdev Content-Length: 744 Lines: 20 * Patrick McHardy <41F447CE.6030007@trash.net> 2005-01-24 01:56 > Thomas Graf wrote: > > >* Patrick McHardy <41F43D6D.30502@trash.net> 2005-01-24 01:12 > > > > > >>gcc assumes likely for ptr != NULL by default. Is there a reason why a > >>match > >>wouldn't have a match function ? > >> > > > >There is no reason but ematches might get written by unexperienced people > >forgeting to register it. I know, the if partly hides the failure, it's > >one of theses case where I have the same arguments for both ways. > > > I don't care much, but I guess people forgetting to add a match > function to an ematch will find other ways to do stupid things :) > How about catching it in tcf_em_register ? Sounds like a good plan, will do so. Thanks.