Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Thursday 2010-02-11 17:06, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>
>> Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>>> On Thursday 2010-02-11 10:00, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>>>>> +static inline const struct ip6t_entry_target *
>>>>> +ip6t_get_target_c(const struct ip6t_entry *e)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + return ip6t_get_target((struct ip6t_entry *)e);
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>> I would prefer a macro over these get_target_c functions.
>>> Why so?
>> Because it avoids having a function for const and one for non-const.
>
> Well, I need two. One that returns const and one that does not;
> ip6t_get_target_c is signaturally-incompatible with ip6t_get_target.
Yes, but you wouldn't if you'd use a macro.
#define ip6t_get_target(e) ((void *)e + e->target_offset)
> FWIW, the function is removed later on anyway ("remove remaining xt1
> code").
This is patch 6/6, what do you mean with "later"?
--
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
