On Wednesday 2008-04-09 16:57, Patrick McHardy wrote: >> >> So let's use NFPROTO_NUM, that's a name fine by me. > > In this case its actually not the best choice since we have > four protocols supported by netfilter and the value will be > something like 35. Use it if you insist, I might change it > though :) > > One more thing I was thinking about. The current AF values > we need to keep are > > #define AF_INET 2 /* Internet IP Protocol */ > #define AF_ATMPVC 8 /* ATM PVCs */ > #define AF_INET6 10 /* IP version 6 */ And PF_UNSPEC. And PF_BRIDGE. This is becoming fun... Where is ATMPVC used? > after decoupling them we don't really care about clashes > anymore, so we might still use zero for ARP and AF_INET6 > as highest value. I have a bad feeling about it, though.. maybe someone wants to add a PF_LOCAL filter one day, and if NFPROTO_ARP is exported, that'd be really bad - more than currently even. -- 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
