From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: nf_nat tree updated Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 15:31:32 +0100 Message-ID: <45670244.5070905@trash.net> References: <45669021.8060109@trash.net> <4566AA49.5020706@trash.net> <200611241427.kAOERapt022342@toshiba.co.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org, kadlec@blackhole.kfki.hu Return-path: To: Yasuyuki KOZAKAI In-Reply-To: <200611241427.kAOERapt022342@toshiba.co.jp> 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 Yasuyuki KOZAKAI wrote: > From: Patrick McHardy > Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 09:16:09 +0100 > >>This is a first attempt - its quite ugly because of all the >>new exports it needs. But even worse - what should we do about >>proc entries added by modules, like the SCTP protocol module? >>Should we just put this in nf_conntrack_standalone or in case >>of SCTP in the module itself? > > > I like later one from the point of view of modularity. BTW, in the first > place, why sysctl entries for tcp/udp/icmp are registered by > nf_conntrack_standalone, not each module ? Good question - I guess its a relict from ip_chains compatibility times, like the entire _core/_standalone split. I'll take another stab at this :)