Pablo, On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 10:13:43PM -0600, Matthew Weber wrote: >> Re-posting a link to a patch that was posted to lkml & linux-netdev at >> first, then posted to netfilter-devel. >> >> http://marc.info/?t=134904906300003&r=1&w=1 >> >> It seems to have been rejected: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/188216/ >> >> We're building a custom C++ application which pulls in the iptables >> header that requires this change. We wanted to see if we could get it >> incorporated so we don't carry the patch as part of our build. > > I'm reticent to apply a kernel patch to resolve C++ compilation > issues. You can easily fix this by keeping a cached copy of this > header file in your userspace application. We've also noticed since I originally posted this thread that it is definitely a kernel patch and not something that should live with the iptables package. > > What existing C++ FOS software is using the native binary iptables > interface? Not sure, I ran into this when porting a proprietary application. > >> I can gladly resubmit the patch but the one in patchworks is still >> correct. > > I guess you're using an older kernel version, this nows resides in > include/uapi/linux. I appreciate the clarification, thanks! -- Matthew L Weber / Pr Software Engineer Airborne Information Systems / Security Systems and Software MS 131-100, C Ave NE, Cedar Rapids, IA, 52498, USA www.rockwellcollins.com Note: Any Export License Required Information and License Restricted Third Party Intellectual Property (TPIP) content must be encrypted and sent to matthew.weber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. -- 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
