On Tuesday 2010-07-20 11:50, Luciano Coelho wrote:
> struct xt_condition_mtinfo {
>- char name[31];
>+ char name[XT_CONDITION_MAX_NAME_SIZE];
> __u8 invert;
>
> /* Used internally by the kernel */
> void *condvar __attribute__((aligned(8)));
> };
>
>+struct condition_tg_info {
In the line of standardized naming, xt_condition_tginfo.
>+ char name[XT_CONDITION_MAX_NAME_SIZE];
>+ __u8 enabled;
No u32 yet?
>+static struct xt_target condition_tg_reg __read_mostly = {
>+ .name = "CONDITION",
>+ .family = NFPROTO_UNSPEC,
>+ .target = condition_tg_target,
>+ .targetsize = sizeof(struct condition_tg_info),
>+ .checkentry = condition_tg_checkentry,
>+ .destroy = condition_tg_destroy,
>+ .me = THIS_MODULE,
>+};
>+
> static struct xt_match condition_mt_reg __read_mostly = {
> .name = "condition",
> .revision = 1,
(I see that you just sent a diff from the previous submission. That
in itself is ok.) Since xt_condition is a new module to upstream but
already exists in Xtables-addons, it makes sense to use a
.revision number of 2 for the initial Linux kernel submission,
also because the struct contents are different from those currently
in Xt-a.
>From an overall quick glance, looks good!
--
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
