On Thursday 2008-10-16 07:56, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: >>> >>> 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. Better now than later! Patch is coming as replies. The one I submitted earlier ( http://marc.info/?l=netfilter-devel&m=122412130603479&w=2 ) should remain separate IMO for it fixes a real bug that exists for a few revisions in the git tree, while the rest is just constant name conversion. >BTW, why are we using NFPROTO_ARP to 3? Just a convention I guess. The only requirement was that it not be 0 (because that maps to NFPROTO_UNSPEC which needs compat'ed to PF_UNSPEC - which is also 0). 3 was just a random choice, I picked it for its proximity to IPV4. -- 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
