On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 01:43:43PM +0000, Patrick McHardy wrote: > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 02:33:06PM +0100, Kristian Evensen wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > No, I'm refering to the (ab)use of the expression. Anything not returning > > > data is not an expression but a statement. > > > > Ok, then I follow :) I followed the naming in meta, but I agree. What > > would be a good naming convetion? I thought of something like > > nft_expr_stmt_*. It is a bit clumsy, but it is at least clear that the > > struct can be used to represent both an expression and a statement. > > nft_ct_stmt? This is what we use in nftables f.i. in case of meta. Just to be clear, I'm not only talking about the naming, a statement is something fundamentally different. Every expression has a value, which a statement doesn't have. Therefore every expression has a a value, destination register, byteorder, ..., all of which don't apply to statements. This is why we have an entire separate class for this in nftables, and this is what I'm also proposing for libnftables. -- 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
