Amin Azez wrote:
Work well done, so oughtn't div64_64 to go in
include/asm-generic/div64.h one day, to be available kernel wide, as
do_div64_64
I see that net/core/pktgen.c is full of 64 bit division and maybe could
benefit from this, and perhaps a version that does remainders too.
So far noth
Work well done, so oughtn't div64_64 to go in
include/asm-generic/div64.h one day, to be available kernel wide, as
do_div64_64
I see that net/core/pktgen.c is full of 64 bit division and maybe could
benefit from this, and perhaps a version that does remainders too.
Amin
Patrick McHardy wrote:
>
From: Harald Welte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 17:46:19 +0200
> [NETFILTER] Add new iptables "connbytes" match
Applied.
-
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/m
From: Harald Welte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 16:50:23 +0200
> So for new development, I'm now more inclined to push things sooner to
> you - even more for code that only adds new featurss. If you generally
> dislike that, please let me know.
I think this is the way to go.
-
To un
From: Harald Welte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 16:51:57 +0200
> Ok, just in case Dave was waiting for my comments (which are usually
> not required since Patricks patches tend to have a higher quality than
> mine):
>
> ACK-ed-by: Harald Welte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I like to see ACK
From: Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add new iptables ipt_connbytes match
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 03:20:06 +0200
> Harald Welte wrote:
> > Just send two incremental patches to Dave.
>
> Here they are. The first patch fixes the div64_64 function, the
The reworked version (already uses aligned_u64). Pleas apply, thanks
--
- Harald Welte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://netfilter.org/
"Fragmentation is like classful addressing -- an interesting early
ar
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 12:09:04PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> From: Harald Welte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:03:43 +0200
>
> > Ok, I hope everyone is fine with this patch:
>
> It is, but I did not add the connbytes patch into my tree so I can't
> use this patch as-is. Th
On Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 03:20:06AM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Harald Welte wrote:
> >Just send two incremental patches to Dave.
>
> Here they are. The first patch fixes the div64_64 function, the second
> one renames some constants.
Ok, just in case Dave was waiting for my comments (which a
Harald Welte wrote:
Just send two incremental patches to Dave.
Here they are. The first patch fixes the div64_64 function, the second
one renames some constants.
[NETFILTER]: Fix div64_64 in ipt_connbytes
Signded-off-by: Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
commit 62084bc1a04e2fbc492566fa
Looks good. Thanks,
-Andi
-
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
From: Harald Welte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:03:43 +0200
> Ok, I hope everyone is fine with this patch:
It is, but I did not add the connbytes patch into my tree so I can't
use this patch as-is. That's why I replied "this is broken, fix u64
alignment" to the connbytes patch i
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 08:23:55PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > I don't think that we're ever going to fix that bug in the old
> > {get,set}sockopt interface, but rather introduce a netlink interface
> > when pkt_tables matures.
>
> All new interfaces should be emulation clean, so that if the old
> I don't think that we're ever going to fix that bug in the old
> {get,set}sockopt interface, but rather introduce a netlink interface
> when pkt_tables matures.
All new interfaces should be emulation clean, so that if the old interface
is replaced later it should eventually work. The best way to
From: Harald Welte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 17:37:30 +0200
> But getting back to the original connbytes issue. Is it worth fixing
> it, if the core iptables doesn't even work (the "old bug")?
I think it is a good policy to not let in new code, regardless of
context, which uses
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 02:03:20PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Unfortunately one of the iptables structures which is needed to get the
> > ruleset in the kernel (ipt_replace) is differently sized when compiled
> > for 32/64 bit. IIRC it doesn't work at all currently.
>
> Yes that's the old bug an
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 04:52:49AM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> This functions looks broken.
I feared it...
> Divisor and divident are mixed up, the
> shifted result variable is not used in the actual division, the
> "first bit has to be < 32" assumption is wrong and num_shift is
> calculate
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 03:42:04PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> From: Harald Welte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 22:03:49 +0200
>
> > +struct ipt_connbytes_info
> > +{
> > + struct {
> > + u_int64_t from; /* count to be matched */
> > + u_int64_t to; /* co
> Unfortunately one of the iptables structures which is needed to get the
> ruleset in the kernel (ipt_replace) is differently sized when compiled
> for 32/64 bit. IIRC it doesn't work at all currently.
Yes that's the old bug and cannot be fixed without breaking compatibility.
But we hope that c
Andi Kleen wrote:
> "David S. Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>Won't work in x86 --> x86_64 compat environments.
>
> Thanks for catching it.
>
> The aligned u64 trick probably will
>
> #define aligned_u64 unsigned long long __attribute__((aligned(8)))
>
> It just forces i386 to be align
"David S. Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> From: Harald Welte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 22:03:49 +0200
>
> > +struct ipt_connbytes_info
> > +{
> > + struct {
> > + u_int64_t from; /* count to be matched */
> > + u_int64_t to; /* count to be matched
Harald Welte wrote:
+/* 64bit divisor, dividend and result. dynamic precision */
+static u_int64_t div64_64(u_int64_t divisor, u_int64_t dividend)
+{
+ u_int64_t result = divisor;
+
+ if (dividend > 0x) {
+ int first_bit = find_first_bit((unsigned long *) ÷nd,
s
From: Harald Welte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 22:03:49 +0200
> +struct ipt_connbytes_info
> +{
> + struct {
> + u_int64_t from; /* count to be matched */
> + u_int64_t to; /* count to be matched */
> + } count;
> + u_int8_t what; /* ip
Hi Dave,
please apply to your net-2.6.14 tree:
--
- Harald Welte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://netfilter.org/
"Fragmentation is like classful addressing -- an interesting early
architectural error that
24 matches
Mail list logo
