Michael Richardson wrote: > [PATCH] This patch introduces a mask to the fwmark test cases in the advanced > routing. This let's one test individual bits of the fwmark to determine > how things should be routed (pick a routing table). This patch retains > compatibility with tests that do not set the mask by assuming a mask > of 0 is equivalent to a mask of 0xffffffff.
> bcdda64a16d4dfda6d95452bbf8541999121831a > diff --git a/include/linux/rtnetlink.h b/include/linux/rtnetlink.h > index 27fd17e..a5b55c2 100644 > --- a/include/linux/rtnetlink.h > +++ b/include/linux/rtnetlink.h > @@ -266,6 +266,7 @@ enum rtattr_type_t > }; > > #define RTA_FWMARK RTA_PROTOINFO > +#define RTA_FWMARK_MASK RTA_CACHEINFO Please introduce a new attribute for this instead of overloading RTA_CACHEINFO. > diff --git a/net/ipv4/fib_rules.c b/net/ipv4/fib_rules.c > index de327b3..69eed89 100644 > --- a/net/ipv4/fib_rules.c > +++ b/net/ipv4/fib_rules.c > @@ -68,6 +68,7 @@ struct fib_rule > u8 r_tos; > #ifdef CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_FWMARK > u32 r_fwmark; > + u32 r_fwmark_mask; Both patches have whitespace issues. You should also change decnet, which also supports routing by fwmark. Other than that the patch looks fine, in fact its nearly identical to a patch I wanted to send soon which does the same :) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
