On Sun, 5 Oct 2008, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > What I really certainly would like to see is that we somehow get rid > of the oddness of naming L3 trackers and L4 trackers. Right now we > have (two examples) > > -rw-r--r-- 1 15924 2008-09-09 20:34 nf_conntrack_ftp.c > -rw-r--r-- 1 43369 2008-09-09 20:33 nf_conntrack_proto_tcp.c > > and in everybody's mind, FTP is a protocol too of course, ˙˙so why > does not ftp have a _proto part, and why does TCP?˙˙ one might ask. > We could just remove the _proto part (also helpful to reduce the > name length), as there is no clash between L3 and L4 trackers > except perhaps for proto_generic and l3proto_generic. Hm? I'd regard it more odd if the _proto part would just be stripped off. ICMP(v6)/TCP/UDP/STCP/etc. are fundamentally different from FTP/IRC/etc: the latter are "just" helpers while the former ones build up the heart of conntrack. Do not just mix the two things in the naming. Best regards, Jozsef - E-mail : kadlec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kadlec@xxxxxxxxxxxx PGP key : http://www.kfki.hu/~kadlec/pgp_public_key.txt Address : KFKI Research Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics H-1525 Budapest 114, POB. 49, Hungary
