hi, & special thanks On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 3:30 AM, Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Frankly saying your codying style is way out of expected range of > allowed glitches, so it is quite hard to review the whole thing. Please > update it to at least remotely match existing code. excuse for this loosely patches... please more explain... do you mean my patches are too long? or ambiguous? i 've tried to code base on "Documentation/CodingStyle".. and patch base on "how to participate in the kernel community" documents. the core of this framework is located at pkt_tables.c&.h (#2 of kernel patches). iptables.c&.h are completely changed. also at the user space libiptc.c is rewritten from scratch thus their patches are really ambiguous to be understood..what is the best way to send this patches? what this phrase mean: "' remotely match existing code ""? >Also I noticed you > do not use list iteration functions sometimes and replaces them with > direct access to next/prev pointers, which is not a good idea. ok, i 've used this style to free list elements. if you mean "don't use direct access to prev/next", i 'll review my code and will try to use list iteration function on every place that is possible or at list use list functions and list element of structures instead of direct access to "next/prev".. -- Hamid Jafarian (hm.t) -- 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
