On Sat, 2005-01-01 at 19:13, Thomas Graf wrote:
> * jamal <1104622934.1047.460.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2005-01-01 18:42
> > what happened to the good old SEL TLV (which i believe we called SEL2
> > now); or maybe thats what contains this TLV?
> Please look at the patch I posted in the other post. I think
> we missudnerstand each other.
> > Why do you need to specify "nmatches".
> It's mainly a shortcut to validate precedence jumps so I
> can avoid traversing the RTA chain twice. It could be
> avoided but is quite handy to speed things up and
> also acts for validation purposes to check consistency of
> the match list.
> > What is TCA_EMATCH_TREE_LIST for? Looks like another TLV nesting. Not
> > needed, you just plumb the T=1,..T=N right after the header.
> No, what if we need some more stuff in the selector TLV? We can't
> modify the header TLV w/o breaking backwards compatibility. Adding
> this addtional nesting allows to simply add stuff after TREE_LIST
> > I think the way you have it is fine - and believe it is the way the
> > action code has it for the list.
> You're using a maximum prio aren't you? I use a RTA_OK() loop
> supporting unlimited number of matches without the need to
> allocate rtattr pointer array.
Note in my case, you probably want a limit on how many actions you chain
in one policy - I would suggest you do the same as well. In other words
even if you do it that way, have a limit check/setting somewhere.