Jan Engelhardt wrote:
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?
Cut-and-paste error, that was supposed to be AF_BRIDGE.
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.
PF_LOCAL? And why would it matter, if we decouple the
values they simply have nothing in common anymore except
the a few old values for compatibility (IP,IP6,BRIDGE).
--
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
