From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bart De Schuymer Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] [NETFILTER]: ebtables: expand/remove unneeded macros Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 19:07:21 +0100 Message-ID: <1200852441.2894.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <47934659.50303@trash.net> <479349D3.6050103@trash.net> <1200839199.2868.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> <47935E7A.1000908@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Patrick McHardy , Netfilter Developer Mailing List To: Jan Engelhardt Return-path: Received: from yergi.telenet-ops.be ([195.130.132.36]:44799 "EHLO yergi.telenet-ops.be" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754492AbYATSIG (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Jan 2008 13:08:06 -0500 Received: from monty.telenet-ops.be (unknown [195.130.132.56]) by yergi.telenet-ops.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 762ED5C9102 for ; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 19:08:04 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Op zo, 20-01-2008 te 18:34 +0100, schreef Jan Engelhardt: > "Ugh." I do not think ebtables(8) should depend on such macros. > iptables(8) does not do that either. > What good would those macros be for? It is not like the module names > would be changing anyway (one purpose of macros - to reduce the number > of places where you have to change things iff things change). We are talking about EBT_ENTRY_ITERATE and the like, right? I didn't see your patch, but even the kernel code uses the ITERATE macros more than once. > >> For the > >> other patches I have no objection except that the MODULE_DESCRIPTION > >> isn't consistent with using upper case after 'Ebtables: ', but I guess > >> that's nitpicking :) Anyway, thanks Jan. > > It is consistent... > > 18:17 ichi:~/Coding/linux_nosov > git log -p > 4ad299b1644579e5c9aae025bf81f6aff1cbdc77^..4ad299b1644579e5c9aae025bf81f6aff1cbdc77 > | grep MODULE_DESC | grep ^+ > > +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Ebtables: DSAP/SSAP field and SNAP type matching"); > +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Ebtables: Combined MAC/IP address list matching"); > +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Ebtables: ARP protocol packet match"); > +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Ebtables: ARP reply target"); > +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Ebtables: Destination MAC address translation"); > +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Ebtables: IPv4 protocol packet match"); > +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Ebtables: rate-limit match"); > +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Ebtables: Packet logging to syslog"); > +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Ebtables: packet mark modification"); packet vs Packet, rate vs Packet, ... But this is not worth the bandwidth at all, I should just shut up :) > > But since ebtables, arptables and iptables > > are pretty similar, perhaps it would be possible to merge ebtables > > and arptables support with iptables. > > Before you attempt that, try merging ip- with ip6tables first. And arptables before ebtables :) For ebtables it's probably best to drop binary compatibility with older ebtables userspace binaries, it's gonna be a mess if you don't. cheers, Bart