> > >> On 1 Apr 2019, at 14:14, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leit...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 08:45:06PM +0000, Kevin 'ldir' Darbyshire-Bryant >> wrote: >>> Hi Cong, >>> >>> OK, so I've renamed conndscp to conntrack and hopefully this are >>> flexible enough for future conntrack->skb operations to be added in the >>> future. How does this one fly? >> >> This work sort of clashes with the work that Paul Blakey and I are >> doing to integrate conntrack with tc and vice-versa. >> >> Considering that in this patch the action is not RCU-ified, that it is >> using a struct as netlink parameter and it is dealing only with the >> dscp info, seems it's easier if we/you extend our code to support this >> feature as well. How does that sound to you? >> >> The RFC I had posted is VERY outdated (message-id >> cover.1548285996.git.mleit...@redhat.com), please don't use it as >> reference. Not sure if Paul can post a refreshed RFC already. >> >> Thanks, >> Marcelo > > I think the reality is that I’m way out of my depth here. The idea was to > have something so simple that I could write(copy - see act_connmark) it/use > it for my use case. I looked at the email you suggested and have not a clue! > Sorry. > > Maybe someone can see the idea and run with it. > > Kevin > >
Hi, We are working on act_ct (basically a act_conntrack) which will be an action to send packets to conntrack for connection tracking. This two modes of operation are so different I don't think they need merging. This would probably be better off with the previous name act_conndscp. Thanks, Paul.
