Shivani Bhardwaj <shivanib134@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I think that this would make it a bit clearer and
> > it also avoids the v3/v2/v1 stacking.
> >
> Sure.
> Just to make sure I get this right, should I be using two objects of
> structures xt_NFQ_info_v3 and xt_NFQ_info_v2 (since v3 does not have
> bypass) and make switch cases accordingly in v3?
I meant something like this (untested):
diff --git a/extensions/libxt_NFQUEUE.c b/extensions/libxt_NFQUEUE.c
index 8115457..9750ce0 100644
--- a/extensions/libxt_NFQUEUE.c
+++ b/extensions/libxt_NFQUEUE.c
@@ -108,11 +108,14 @@ static void NFQUEUE_parse_v3(struct xt_option_call *cb)
{
struct xt_NFQ_info_v3 *info = cb->data;
- NFQUEUE_parse_v2(cb);
+ NFQUEUE_parse_v1(cb);
switch (cb->entry->id) {
case O_QUEUE_CPU_FANOUT:
info->flags |= NFQ_FLAG_CPU_FANOUT;
break;
+ case O_QUEUE_BYPASS:
+ info->flags |= NFQ_FLAG_BYPASS;
+ break;
}
}
> Should I be doing this for all the functions (save, xlate, print)
> since the same stacking is there too?
Hmm, I think it would make sense to disentangle this as well
(as a 2nd cleanup patch).
The ->bypass/->flag overloading works but its not really obvious...
I don't have a strong opinion however, if you think your v1 patch
is ok I'm fine with it as well.
--
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
