Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list netdev); Sun, 16 Jan 2005 06:58:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx01.cybersurf.com (mx01.cybersurf.com [209.197.145.104])
	by oss.sgi.com (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j0GEwnYj004097
	for <netdev@oss.sgi.com>; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 06:58:49 -0800
Received: from mail.cyberus.ca ([209.197.145.21])
	by mx01.cybersurf.com with esmtp (Exim 4.30)
	id 1CqBra-0003e5-CT
	for netdev@oss.sgi.com; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 09:58:46 -0500
Received: from cpe0030ab124d2f-cm014500000962.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com ([24.103.99.32] helo=[10.0.0.9])
	by mail.cyberus.ca with esmtp (Exim 4.20)
	id 1CqBrW-0005Eq-Um; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 09:58:43 -0500
Subject: Re: [RFC] meta ematch
From: jamal <hadi@cyberus.ca>
Reply-To: hadi@cyberus.ca
To: Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch>
Cc: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>, netdev@oss.sgi.com
In-Reply-To: <20050114151407.GR26856@postel.suug.ch>
References: <20050106194102.GW26856@postel.suug.ch>
	 <1105105511.1046.77.camel@jzny.localdomain>
	 <20050108145457.GZ26856@postel.suug.ch>
	 <1105363582.1041.162.camel@jzny.localdomain>
	 <20050110211747.GA26856@postel.suug.ch>
	 <1105394738.1085.63.camel@jzny.localdomain>
	 <20050113174111.GP26856@postel.suug.ch> <41E6C3E5.2020908@trash.net>
	 <20050113192047.GQ26856@postel.suug.ch> <41E71CC4.3020102@trash.net>
	 <20050114151407.GR26856@postel.suug.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: jamalopolous
Message-Id: <1105887519.1097.597.camel@jzny.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 
Date: 16 Jan 2005 09:58:40 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.80/650/Sun Jan  2 19:00:02 2005
	clamav-milter version 0.80j
	on 127.0.0.1
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-archive-position: 308
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com
Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com
X-original-sender: hadi@cyberus.ca
Precedence: bulk
X-list: netdev

On Fri, 2005-01-14 at 10:14, Thomas Graf wrote:
> 
> 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?
What if all i wanted to say was 
..
ematch indev eth0

I only see one value there - does that become l or r? 

more comments coming - just ned some caffeine then i will stare.

cheers,
jamal