Patrick McHardy wrote: > Jan Engelhardt wrote: >> On Wednesday 2008-10-15 21:54, Pablo Neira Ayuso 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.) > > I agree with Jan on this one, there doesn't seem to be a reason for > not using the NFPROTO constants consistently. OK, then I think that it would make sense a minor cleanup for all the NF_HOOK to use NFPROTO_*? We can do this later. BTW, why are we using NFPROTO_ARP to 3? Just a convention I guess. -- "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
