On Thursday 2010-08-05 16:41, luciano.coelho@nokia.com wrote:

quoted text
> struct xt_condition_mtinfo {
>-	char name[31];
>+	char name[27];
> 	__u8 invert;
>+	__u32 value;

Please also bump the .revision field to 2 with this patch so that
testing can always proceed without an ABI clash.
(rev 2 would then remain over the course of the remaining patches 
you submit.)
(rev 0 = ipt_condition/pom-ng; rev 1 = xt_condition from Xt-a)

quoted text
>+	char buf[14];

	char buf[sizeof("4294967296")];

seems more intuitive :-)

quoted text
>+	unsigned long long value;
>+
>+	if (length == 0)
>+		return 0;
>+
>+	if (length > sizeof(buf))
>+		return -EINVAL;
>+
>+	if (copy_from_user(buf, input, length) != 0)
>+		return -EFAULT;
>+
>+	buf[length - 1] = '__PLACEHOLDER__2_';
>+
>+	if (strict_strtoull(buf, 0, &value) != 0)
>+		return -EINVAL;
>+
>+	if (value > (u32) value)
>+		return -EINVAL;

Is it possible to use just strict_strtoul?

quoted text
>-	return var->enabled ^ info->invert;
>+	return (var->value == info->value) ^ info->invert;

Since the condition value (cdmark) was thought of an nfmark-style thing, 
would it perhaps make sense to model it after it

	return (var->value & ~info->mask) ^ info->value;

Other opinions?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html