[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 09:58:40 -0500
Cc: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20050114151407.GR26856@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: jamalopolous
References: <20050106194102.GW26856@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1105105511.1046.77.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050108145457.GZ26856@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1105363582.1041.162.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050110211747.GA26856@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1105394738.1085.63.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050113174111.GP26856@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <41E6C3E5.2020908@xxxxxxxxx> <20050113192047.GQ26856@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <41E71CC4.3020102@xxxxxxxxx> <20050114151407.GR26856@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: hadi@xxxxxxxxxx
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
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?
What if all i wanted to say was 
ematch indev eth0

I only see one value there - does that become l or r? 

more comments coming - just ned some caffeine then i will stare.


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