From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH] priv_data 0/2 Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 20:33:03 +0200 Message-ID: <44A962DF.3080406@trash.net> References: <200606261641.47294.max@nucleus.it> 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: Massimiliano Hofer In-Reply-To: <200606261641.47294.max@nucleus.it> 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 Massimiliano Hofer wrote: > Hi, > this is a version of my priv_data patch that updates targets and renames > functions as suggested by Patrick. > > Since xt_init_match() and xt_init_target() (formerly xt_check_match() and > xt_check_target()) no longer just check and they needed some argument changes > anyway, I included some more common code previously replicated in > ip_tables.c, ip6_tables.c and arp_tables.c. > Similarly I introduced xt_destroy_match() and xt_destroy_taget(). > > The resulting patches are larger than I anticipated, but most of the space is > taken by function ranames and argument adjustments. > > My previous example with xt_condition still applies (just rename checkentry to > init in struct xt_match). > > I tested several combination with iptables, ip6tables and arptables. It can't > make it fail, but I didn't try it with a real world network load. Right now I > don't have a 64 bit machine available for testing (I should be able to use > one in a few days), so I didn't test compat at all. > > Testing and comments, as always, are appreciated. Nice work, thanks Massimiliano. I'll have a closer look later and will probably apply it tommorrow. I hope we can still get this in 2.6.18.