On Wednesday 2010-03-17 15:40, Patrick McHardy wrote: >> >> OK that seems mostly fine. Basically its just the NULL/ENOENT >> interpretation that might be confusing. > >One more thing though - I really don't like the strange mix of booleans >and errno codes. If you want to change this, I'm pretty indifferent, but what if I don't want to change it? :-) Is it so bad to keep EINVAL and unspecified-error separated at the extension level? >please switch to the >standard convention of 0 == no error, < 0 == errno code. For unspecific >errors you can simply return EINVAL as the xt_check_*() functions >currently do. -- 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
