Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
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.
Agreed. For now its only necessary for ARP though if I'm not mistaken.
BTW, why are we using NFPROTO_ARP to 3? Just a convention I guess.
No specific reason AFAIK.
--
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
