Re: [RFC] meta ematch

* jamal [ref] 2005-01-16 09:58

On Fri, 2005-01-14 at 10:14, Thomas Graf wrote:

quoted

Here's a revised patch. I fixed the numeric comparison issues and
added meta_obj instead of using meta_data to give a better impression
on the difference of a comparable object and meta data definitions.

I scanned the code very quickly; lets start with the big picture then i
will send some more comments:
Did i understand this correctly that a metamatch MUST have a lvalue +
rvalue pair?

They MAY have bove.

What if all i wanted to say was 
..
ematch indev eth0

The lvalue will be TCF_META_ID_INDEV and your rvalue will be
TCF_META_TYPE_VAR with "eth0" as payload(TCF_EM_META_RVALUE).
TCF_EM_META_LVALUE will be unused in this case.