Two more small patches + opinion question

[Thomas Graf]

On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 09:58:40AM -0600, Andrew Collins wrote:
> Two more small patches attached, one to allow rtnl_tc_str2handle to
> recognize "ingress" to make using ingress qdiscs a little more
> convenient, and one to correct a missing prototype in my fw_mask
> patch.

Can you submit these as individual patches with a complete patch
description? That saves me a lot of hassle in splitting the patches
apart, writing patch descriptions and fixing the author information.
git-send-email is a wonderful way of submitting patches.

> Also, a question.  I'm thinking of adding TC actions support, and I'm
> wondering if there are any opinions as to whether a rtnl_action should
> be a subtype of rtnl_tc or a distinct type?  It shares a number of
> similarities with class/qdisc/cls objects (for example, kind & stats),
> but does not share base message parsing/construction.  Actions also
> don't have a tcmsg header, so items like handle/parent are
> meaningless.  Any suggestions?

I think either is fine. Personally I would not base them on rtnl_tc even
though you could share some code.  ematch is also using its own type. Do
as you think is best, I will accept both implementation methods.

~Thomas