From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Martin Josefsson Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: what's the lockingrules for ip_conntrack_expect_list? Date: 12 Oct 2002 15:11:32 +0200 Sender: netfilter-devel-admin@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: <1034428292.7595.40.camel@tux> References: <1034361771.25973.65.camel@tux> <20021012142502.Y13233@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jozsef Kadlecsik , Netfilter-devel Return-path: To: Harald Welte In-Reply-To: <20021012142502.Y13233@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> Errors-To: netfilter-devel-admin@lists.netfilter.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2002-10-12 at 14:25, Harald Welte wrote: > See my other mail, I don't agree with everything said in the thread before. > Sorry for my late comments, I should have sent that mail two days earlier. No problem, I'm happy that you cleared things up. > It's always ugly to export a non-locking __foo function as API to another > module. Yes I know, but we need to do something about this. > > Sure they are harmless but users don't know that and send reports. (this > > problem goes away with Rustys patches for 2.5, exp_for_packet is completely > > removed) > > Yes I agree with the problem, but not with the style of the solution. > *sigh*. > > __find_proto should be inlined anyway. So if we put it into a header file, > which is included by conntrack and nat (ip_conntrack.h), we would avoid > exporting it as a symbol. I'll whip up a patch. -- /Martin Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.