Jozsef Kadlecsik wrote: > On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > >>>>> and it seems more intuitive to write "-m state" >>>>> than "-m conntrack --ctstate" to me. >>>> I oppose the removal of xt_state, *unless* the userspace "-m state" is >>>> kept working and the conntrack module automatically supports it. >>> Yes, that would be acceptable. >>> >>>> It's such a basic match that it's simply overkill to remove it. >>> Agreed. >> So what now? Should xt_conntrack be perhaps rebranded as a new >> xt_state rev and let's obsolete xt_conntrack.c instead? > > That's much more acceptable, also because of the usage patterns. And the > migration can be made easier with module aliasing. Yes, I prefer that way as well. Both state and conntrack should continue to work in userspace. -- 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
