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 17:15, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>>>> #define AF_INET         2       /* Internet IP Protocol         */
>>>> #define AF_ATMPVC       8       /* ATM PVCs                     */
>>>> #define AF_INET6        10      /* IP version 6                 */
> #define AF_BLUETOOTH	31
>>>> 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).
> 
> Are you suggesting to split the AF and NFPROTO list?
> (Took me quite some time..)

Yes.

> A few concerns.
> If so, how would you deal with the addition of a new, real,
> protocol? Suppose someone added support for the
> semifictional IPv5, say  AF_INET5=42 or so. How would
> this affect the NFPROTO list?

It wouldn't since those values simply have seperate
meanings. AF_INET5 might be 42, NFPROTO_INET5 could
be .. lets say 5.