Jan Engelhardt wrote: >>> Perhaps the following helps? >> Yes, your patch will also work, but it introduces an inconsistency in >> the naming used to register hooks in the family field. > > No, not really. Netfilter Hooks are supposed to register with > .pf = NFPROTO_FOO > instead of > .pf = PF_FOO > because the nf_hooks list itself is indexed by nfproto numbers, > not PF numbers: > > struct list_head nf_hooks[NFPROTO_NUMPROTO][NF_MAX_HOOKS] __read_mostly; > > (The fact that there's still PF_ in the source is merely historical, > and as you see, PF_foo == NFPROTO_foo for that exact reason.) This makes sense, but then I think that a cleanup for all the NF_HOOK calls in the net code to use NFPROTO_* instead of the family would be interesting for consistency. BTW, I think that the last chunk of your patch should be a different one since it fixes NFQUEUE for arptables. I don't mind about using your patch or mine, both works. Let's fix it, that's all. Patrick, I leave this up to you. -- "Los honestos son inadaptados sociales" -- Les Luthiers -- 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
