From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] [NETFILTER]: rename NF_ARP to NFPROTO_ARP and assign
 a non-clashing value
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:21:56 +0200
Message-ID: <47FCC2F4.4030901@trash.net>
References: <5130e28c2130c57a9a07ae21c552fe7db519473c.1207668694.git.jengelh@computergmbh.de> <2a75525ff0d60f2e71df2c9c3d040d3a76451713.1207668694.git.jengelh@computergmbh.de> <47FCBC24.4020209@trash.net> <alpine.LNX.1.10.0804091508480.4411@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr> <47FCC0D2.7060306@trash.net> <alpine.LNX.1.10.0804091514550.4411@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@computergmbh.de>
Return-path: <netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:46167 "EHLO
	stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751890AbYDINV6 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 9 Apr 2008 09:21:58 -0400
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LNX.1.10.0804091514550.4411@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr>
Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org>

Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Wednesday 2008-04-09 15:12, Patrick McHardy wrote
>>
>>>> The array declarations should then use NFPROTO_MAX + 1.
>>> Why +1 if MAX is ARP?
>> Because array indices start at zero.
>>
> 
> It's all whacked up, srsly.
> 
> #define AF_RXRPC 33
> #define AF_MAX   34
> 
> IMHO we should just:
> 
> enum {
> 	NFPROTO_FOO = AF_MAX,
> 	NFPROTO_BAR,
> 	NFPROTO_BAZ,
> 	NFPROTO_MAX,
> };
> 
> and use NFPROTO_MAX in lieu of AF_MAX where due.
> Putting that into place with ARP means:
> 
> enum {
> 	NFPROTO_ARP = AF_MAX,
> 	NFPROTO_MAX,
> };
> 
> and use NFPROTO_MAX. No __NFPROTO_MIN, no __NFPROTO_MAX, and
> less confusion overall. How about it? :)

The decoupling of netfilter supported protocols from AF values
makes sense.

However I think _MAX definitions actually having the value MAX + 1
is pretty poor style. When you see an array dimensioned as
[XYZ_MAX] you always have to check whether it is really the maximum
(and thus a bug) or maximum + 1. So I'd prefer to have MAX really
be the maximum and use max + 1 for arrays etc.