On Jan 8 2008 16:48, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> commit 3ee575c6ed06528d7bde3c59b8f8898de1eafd4e
>> Author: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Wed Jan 2 18:25:38 2008 +0100
>>
>> [NETFILTER]: xt_policy: use the new unoin nf_inet_addr
>
>
>> struct xt_policy_elem
>> {
>> - union xt_policy_addr saddr;
>> - union xt_policy_addr smask;
>> - union xt_policy_addr daddr;
>> - union xt_policy_addr dmask;
>> + union {
>> +#ifdef __KERNEL__
>> + struct {
>> + union nf_inet_addr saddr;
>> + union nf_inet_addr smask;
>> + union nf_inet_addr daddr;
>> + union nf_inet_addr dmask;
>> + };
>> +#else
>> + struct {
>> + union xt_policy_addr saddr;
>> + union xt_policy_addr smask;
>> + union xt_policy_addr daddr;
>> + union xt_policy_addr dmask;
>> + };
>> +#endif
>
>
> I really dislike this uglyness, but I've applied it since
> there it also doesn't make much sense to leave single files
> using their own address definition.
>
<CES>It will all go away in a few years time</CES>
Ehrm, how will userspace actually deal with it?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
