On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 11:28 PM, Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org> wrote: > On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 11:38:33 +0100 > Simon Horman <simon.hor...@netronome.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> this series have several related parts. >> >> * tc: flower: Update documentation to indicate ARP takes IPv4 prefixes >> >> Enhance documentation for consistency with later documentation changes. >> >> * tc: flower: use correct type when calling flower_icmp_attr_type >> >> Type correction to ICMP code; should not have runtime effect >> >> * tc: flower: provide generic masked u8 parser helper >> tc: flower: provide generic masked u8 print helper >> >> Generic parsing and printing of masked u8 options >> >> * tc: flower: support masked ICMP code and type match >> >> Support masking ICMP code and type matches. >> Unmasked matching is already supported by iproute2 >> Masked matching is already supported by the kernel. >> >> This is used by the ND patches >> >> * tc: flower: Add TCA_FLOWER_KEY_ND_* >> tc: flower: Support matching on ND >> >> The last two patches are marked as RFC as they support functionality >> submitted to but not yet not yet present in the kernel. >> >> >> Simon Horman (7): >> tc: flower: Update documentation to indicate ARP takes IPv4 prefixes >> tc: flower: use correct type when calling flower_icmp_attr_type >> tc: flower: provide generic masked u8 parser helper >> tc: flower: provide generic masked u8 print helper >> tc: flower: support masked ICMP code and type match >> tc: flower: Add TCA_FLOWER_KEY_ND_* >> tc: flower: Support matching on ND >> >> include/linux/pkt_cls.h | 7 ++ >> man/man8/tc-flower.8 | 58 +++++++++-- >> tc/f_flower.c | 260 >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------- >> 3 files changed, 258 insertions(+), 67 deletions(-) >> > > Since this patchset depended on changes to pkt_cls.h which are not accepted > upstream > into net-next, I marked it as awaiting upstream. When the corresponding > kernel changes > are accepted into net-next please resubmit it.
Hi Stephen, I think that the first 5 patches can be considered independently of the last two which have the dependency you describe. Sorry for not making this clearer; e.g. by posting them separately. Would it help if I reposted the first five patches?
