Re: [PATCH 3/8] [NETFILTER]: rename NF_ARP to NFPROTO_ARP and assign a non-clashing value

[Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>]

Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Wednesday 2008-04-09 16:57, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>>> So let's use NFPROTO_NUM, that's a name fine by me.
>> In this case its actually not the best choice since we have
>> four protocols supported by netfilter and the value will be
>> something like 35. Use it if you insist, I might change it
>> though :)
>>
>> One more thing I was thinking about. The current AF values
>> we need to keep are
>>
>> #define AF_INET         2       /* Internet IP Protocol         */
>> #define AF_ATMPVC       8       /* ATM PVCs                     */
>> #define AF_INET6        10      /* IP version 6                 */
> 
> And PF_UNSPEC. And PF_BRIDGE. This is becoming fun...
> 
> Where is ATMPVC used?

Cut-and-paste error, that was supposed to be AF_BRIDGE.

> 
>> after decoupling them we don't really care about clashes
>> anymore, so we might still use zero for ARP and AF_INET6
>> as highest value.
> 
> I have a bad feeling about it, though.. maybe someone wants
> to add a PF_LOCAL filter one day, and if NFPROTO_ARP is
> exported, that'd be really bad - more than currently even.

PF_LOCAL? And why would it matter, if we decouple the
values they simply have nothing in common anymore except
the a few old values for compatibility (IP,IP6,BRIDGE).