On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 04:44:29PM +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> On So, 2015-04-05 at 22:19 -0400, David Miller wrote:
> > --- a/include/linux/netfilter.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/netfilter.h
> > @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ struct nf_hook_state {
> > struct net_device *in;
> > struct net_device *out;
> > struct sock *sk;
> > - int (*okfn)(struct sk_buff *);
> > + int (*okfn)(struct sock *, struct sk_buff *);
> > };
>
> If we give okfn the signature int (*okfn)(struct nf_hook_state *); then
> we would not need to touch anything else to enhance this.
>
> What do you think?
I guess you mean something like:
int (*okfn)(struct sk_buff *, struct nf_hook_state *);
I agree that would save us from more changes on the okfn() signature.
I think it's OK if that change is introduced once we have some client
code that needs it, I mean in a follow up patch.
--
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
