Patrick McHardy wrote:

>>> Why didn't you remove it entirely instead ?
>>
>>
>> true :), patch attached. I've gzip'ed it, it's too big for sending it 
>> in clear text.
>
>
> Thanks a lot. Hopeing I don't annoy you ..


No way, thanks Patrick.

> I haven't actually checked
> the API, but can't we remove all those now empty init functions ?
> If not I think it would be nicer to change the API to check for
> ->init == NULL instead of leaving all these empty funtion bodies around.


Yes, I agree and I did it, I must confess that it was kinda boring a 
bit. See the patch attached.

>> Next step, what do you think about removing nfcache passed as 
>> parameter from the iptables API?
>
>
> I don't think we can remove it from struct ipt_entry without
> breaking userspace compatibility. But we could stop using it.


Yes, I was aware of that :). I didn't talk about modifying ipt_entry 
which is not possible because of backward compatibility. I mean that, as 
next step, we could kill those nfcache arguments passed as parameter 
that aren't useful anymore.

--
Pablo