From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: Allowing netlink_family to be any integer (was: [PATCH 2.6] iptables CLUSTERIP target) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 20:27:24 -0700 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20041025202724.6d834af5.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20041021142527.GG3551@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> <20041022160559.28f9c540.davem@davemloft.net> <20041022231607.GA14365@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: laforge@netfilter.org, lmb@suse.de, ahu@ds9a.nl, hch@infradead.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: Herbert Xu In-Reply-To: <20041022231607.GA14365@gondor.apana.org.au> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 09:16:07 +1000 Herbert Xu wrote: > On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 04:05:59PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > > On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 07:31:07 +1000 > > Herbert Xu wrote: > > > > > Initially I considered an interface where kernel users can register > > > themselves using a string as the key. But I soon realised that we > > > could simply allow the netlink_family field to be an arbitrary integer > > > that is used as a key to a hash table. > > > > (I assume you mean "nl_family" not "netlink_family" :-) > > I'm no plans yet in taking over all address families :) > I'm only referring to the third argument in socket(2). Color me confused about how your scheme might work. If you cook up an example patch, I guarentee it will be worth your while. 8)