From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Specify nf_queue max length from userspace Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 03:21:29 +0200 Message-ID: <44974D99.8000807@trash.net> References: <1150217788.7164.4.camel@porky> <1150218404.5386.2.camel@porky> <4496D030.1010400@trash.net> <1150747030.6979.6.camel@porky> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org Return-path: To: Eric Leblond In-Reply-To: <1150747030.6979.6.camel@porky> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Errors-To: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org Eric Leblond wrote: > I did not like the idea of having params split between two structures. > And as the user base is still small, I thought we may break ABI to have > something cleaner. > Pablo and you do not like the idea, I wrote a patch that should not > break the ABI (attached to the mail). > In fact, after introducing the new attribute, I just found it is in a > way cleaner than my initial one because code does not depend from a > structure. Yes, that is better. I still would prefer to have all configuration attributes nested under some common attribute .. but I can't see a clean way to do that right now. Let me think about this some more.