Hi Pablo, > From: netfilter-devel-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:netfilter-devel-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pablo Neira > Ayuso > On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 08:46:44AM +0800, Gao Feng wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Pablo Neira Ayuso [mailto:pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Fri, Mar 31, > > > 2017 at 06:38:20PM +0800, gfree.wind@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > +static struct nf_ct_nat_helper pptp_nat = { > > > > + .name = "pptp_nat", > > > > > > Why all these with "xyz_nat" names? > > > > I just used the variable name before. > > How about rename it to "xyz_nat_helper"? > > > > > > This is going to break ctnetlink, as this is the name that > > > identifies the > > NAT > > > helper to be used. > > This name is exposed to userspace, right? > > So FTP uses to rely on the "nat-follow-master" expectfn. But now the name will > be "ftp_nat". > > If that is the case, this would break backward. I am a little confusing. The " struct nf_ct_nat_helper ftp_nat ftp_nat" is one new variable, while the original variable "struct nf_ct_nat_helper follow_master_nat" name still is " "nat-follow-master". I couldn't figure about how could this break backward. Do you think the name " ftp_nat " should use " ftp_nat_follow_master"? BTW, how about use nat_helper pointer instead of expect fn? As I mentioned before, it could avoid two assignment. Is it ok? Regards Feng > -- > 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 -- 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
