Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Wednesday 2008-04-09 15:42, Patrick McHardy wrote:
In this case, I'd just follow AF_ suit.
Especially since NAME_MAX=256, PATH_MAX=4096 for example,
Thats a bad example.
_MAX is more often the total size rather than the last element.
(The more even since loops use for (; x < MAX; )
rather than for (; x<= MAX;) as can probably be seen
in a lot of userspace code.)
Which is in my opinion a sign of poor coding and leads to
off-by-ones. Please don't redefine the meaning of maximum.
I don't think so. Ask a person on the street:
What's the maximum number of AFs Linux knows about?
S/He would answer 34, counting up in front of you:
- “it knows UNSPEC, IPV4, IPV6, ... and RXRPC, makes for
a total of 34 AFs”
I'm going to try this. I'll let you know in an hour :)
So since that just came to my mind, how about using the
somewhat odd one NFPROTO_TOTAL?
How about just using MAX the way a maximum is defined?
--
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
