Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Thursday 2010-04-22 13:14, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>
>>> +static struct xt_match condition_mt_reg __read_mostly = {
>>> + .name = "condition",
>>> + .revision = 1,
>> Why are we starting with revision 1?
>
> So as to avoid collisions with previously-deployed extensions.
>
> Debian once decided to patch their etch 2.6.18 kernel with
> ipt_connlimit ("connlimit.0"). That subsequently backfired with the
> etchnhalf upgrade where xt_connlimit (also known as "connlimit.0")
> was introduced.
>
> condition.0 was used by pom-ng.
>
> For the same reason, xt_TEE-2.6.35 starts with TEE.1, because TEE.0
> is already in use by the variant without oif in struct xt_tee_tginfo;
> i.e. all the Xtables-addons installations to date, basically.
>
> It is not a particularl hardship to pick a revision number that is
> distinct from all revision numbers previously seen in the wild, so
> I'm set to go this way.
Fair enough, I guess we don't have to fear running out of revisions :)
Thanks for the explanation.
--
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
