Alexander, I don't have a problem with that particular patch. However since the other patch was redundant and the only user of this one it seemed redundant to me as well. If you have another usecase for this then please let us know.
Cheers, Steven On 29.09.2015 11:37, Alexander Couzens wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > Hi Steven, > > you rejected this patch as well. > > Why would you not allow to define a specific table for ipv4, but for > ipv6? > >> cy...@openwrt.org >> NAK. Use "option ip4table" and "option ip6table" which works with >> all protocols already. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2 > > iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJWClv2AAoJEMKenaag34YEpGUP/1j+pipA5j9C7vkfAMyYqkkU > ZzDR3k/rEXK9JeAXVABagSG3SRmfOGOCkgFMShW4vxapO7beKViAFU/tUroSB69K > +hdCFMqkUcKtAa9AMm0JDkA5tkNxQ3uBPNAnj/PTxNMFFRDk2+qX7Do05Y4KbB2g > FWeialu1K5pJydPFeu2fP1ajID05phOlJPHjalLyDjYLtPU2KDDSiGICmldGo18J > 0RDgy4/9GVxGkU8v3+3S5szQWZxns2M/CJSJ0T182cHpLRzP2qOFvt802q+hdm1i > latOWvVJ6+qsX0rMJh3SlSMF75vWo6FkAkld4vpiWtF0KT718v1+xEF+DDou9pw4 > QLhb/OO52Ic2Qv81St7kkknVQU45jcOA3JNQsB9UpDxRSng0QnTZyX507B8iHfJh > XfHOz5ZBgZ1J+OW/RgPf889ChUtGWYlFU31snZWPfBcSVsHuKpZ396SoKyqDWOZI > GuSnNQViYrgBQAba98Y0UlYQ+lFxHs4+Vivd2qzGE/9RxhR4wuSWbiI5vKic2S1r > anEklRrDpv0zo8tyaEKKetMyE9K2l2k3zEJ54jJhALC9vldX+cEnYnvqt5zN3ImE > hHO8BtlrjcdUGOu9xHyWG4Igsra23wGZ0UGAuGVDGyED3oBFX4kJlv3JF4g9DEiV > 6xqiqLeAcZ/f5+gVaua3 > =Xe6x > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
