On Friday 2009-06-05 15:27, Florian Westphal wrote:
>> >target4_v1{
>> >+ .revision = 1,
>> >+ .name = "NFQUEUE",
>> >+ .version = XTABLES_VERSION,
>> >+ .size = XT_ALIGN(sizeof(struct xt_NFQ_info_v1)),
>> >+ .userspacesize = XT_ALIGN(sizeof(struct xt_NFQ_info_v1)),
>> >+ .help = NFQUEUE_help_v1,
>> >+ .init = NFQUEUE_init_v1,
>> >+ .parse = NFQUEUE_parse_v1,
>> >+ .print = NFQUEUE_print_v1,
>> >+ .save = NFQUEUE_save_v1,
>> >+ .extra_opts = NFQUEUE_opts_v1,
>> >+};
>> >+
>> >+static struct xtables_target nfqueue_target6_v1 = {
>> >+ .family = NFPROTO_IPV6,
>> >+ .revision = 1,
>>
>> You can combine these two to NFPROTO_UNSPEC, like you did to v0,
>> is not it?
>
>Hm, v1 is tied to ipv4/6 on the kernel side, thats why I wanted to make
>this explicit here, too.
It is not needed. iptables's .family and the kernel's .family fields
are not linked in any way. That is why libxt_length.c can have
NFPROTO_UNSPEC even if the kernel's xt_length.c happens not to
(because it inspects L3proto-dependent headers).
--
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
