Hi Cong & all, > On 1 Apr 2019, at 22:06, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 7:22 AM Paul Blakey <pa...@mellanox.com> wrote: >> > <snip some context> > >> >> This would probably be better off with the previous name act_conndscp. > > > If naming is the only concern here, then it is not hard to find > a name we are all satisfied with, like act_ctinfo (if we still want more > than just DSCP).
Personally I don’t *need* anything more than restoring the DSCP from conntrack mark, however my own narrow viewpoint doesn’t preclude some future desire to restore something else. For that reason I changed the name from act_conndscp to act_conntrack and hope that the latest suggested name change ‘act_ctinfo’ be the last. Incidentally I like the name ‘act_ctinfo’ especially if it is intended there be a ’send to conntrack’ type action of act_ct/act_conntrack. Moving on from naming the darn thing and assuming ‘act_ctinfo’ sticks, is there anything fundamentally wrong with the code? Nitpicks (or bigpicks) in approach or style? I’m naively hoping the first real submission results in “That’s wonderful code, we’d be mad not to accept it” instead of “you’ve done that wrong, and that, and that, and that….” :-) > > Thanks. Cheers, Kevin D-B gpg: 012C ACB2 28C6 C53E 9775 9123 B3A2 389B 9DE2 334A
