From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pablo Neira Ayuso Subject: Re: [conntrackd PATCH v3] conntrackd: add systemd support Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 18:03:26 +0100 Message-ID: <20151116170325.GA1694@salvia> References: <144741224967.19762.12430502552848102506.stgit@r2d2.cica.es> <20151116111720.GA14988@salvia> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Netfilter Development Mailing list To: Arturo Borrero Gonzalez Return-path: Received: from mail.us.es ([193.147.175.20]:38244 "EHLO mail.us.es" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753325AbbKPRDe (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Nov 2015 12:03:34 -0500 Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (antivirus1.int [192.168.2.11]) by mail.us.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD48211D90E for ; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 18:03:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by antivirus1-rhel7.int (Postfix) with ESMTP id A012B1788ED for ; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 18:03:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by antivirus1-rhel7.int (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DC161788FE for ; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 18:03:27 +0100 (CET) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 03:22:21PM +0100, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez wrote: > On 16 November 2015 at 12:17, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 11:59:35AM +0100, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez wrote: > >> v2: change functions definitions to static inline if no BUILD_SYSTEMD, > >> and set watchdog variables as static. > >> > >> v3: add runtime systemd configuration. Report warnings. > > > > One more question: > > > > This is checking for 'libsystemd >= 227' > > > > Is this library version really required? Or it is simply that you have > > set to the most recent version for some reason? > > 227 is the version I've tested. Previous versions may not work. > > For example, I remember the library being split in several small > libraries and then mixed into this libsystemd, thus changing some > headers and include paths. > > Also, I simply ignore what is the behaviour of the watchdog stuff > previous to 227, it seems a recent thing. > > What are your concerns? I would like not to see many ifdefs in the conntrack-tools tree just because they update interfaces too frequently. Could you check at their history record to see how they have been performing on that front so far? Thanks.