On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 12:27:42 +, David Laight wrote:
> Consider what happened with "no", "nofubar" and "nofubar_baz",
> all ought to be rejected.
Why? "no" translates to "", "nofubar" to "fubar", etc. And those will
be evaluated the same way as if they were supplied without the "no".
I don't
From: Of Jiri Benc
> Sent: 19 January 2017 14:22
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 16:17:48 +0200, Paul Blakey wrote:
> > + while (token) {
> > + if (!strncmp(token, "no", 2)) {
> > + no = true;
> > + token = strchr(token, '_') + 1;
>
> This seems to still
On 19/01/2017 16:22, Jiri Benc wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 16:17:48 +0200, Paul Blakey wrote:
+ while (token) {
+ if (!strncmp(token, "no", 2)) {
+ no = true;
+ token = strchr(token, '_') + 1;
This seems to still assume that
Instead of "magic numbers" we can now specify each flag
by name. Prefix of "no" (e.g nofrag) unsets the flag,
otherwise it wil be set.
Example:
# add a flower filter that will drop fragmented packets
tc filter add dev ens4f0 protocol ip parent : \
flower \
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 16:17:48 +0200, Paul Blakey wrote:
> + while (token) {
> + if (!strncmp(token, "no", 2)) {
> + no = true;
> + token = strchr(token, '_') + 1;
This seems to still assume that "no" is followed by an underscore.
What about a
