On Monday 2011-06-06 15:44, Maciej Żenczykowski wrote: >> The mask indicates the bits one wants to zero out, so it needs to be >> inverted before applying to the original TOS field. > >Uhm, does it? >This is backwards incompatible... > >To me, you always 'and' with a mask, not with the negation of the mask. >ie. a mask is the bits you want to keep.
That certainly is not set into stone. If you model a sculpture into an ice/concrete/wood/etc. block, you usually specify what to take away rather than what to leave, to take a non-abstract example. But see below. >(mind you I haven't looked at the documentation of the feature, [You should do that.] xt_MARK does the same as xt_TOS, and both should be using &~ - because --set-mark 0x12/0x0f has always meant "kill 0x3f, then set 0x12". I wager to say that the most common applications are: --set-mark somevalue/samevalue --set-mark somevalue/0xff so having to calculate the negation of samevalue is usually wasted brain time. _______________________________________________ stable mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/stable
