From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] [NETFILTER]: rename NF_ARP to NFPROTO_ARP and assign a non-clashing value Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 03:10:47 +0200 Message-ID: <47FD6917.7070109@trash.net> References: <5130e28c2130c57a9a07ae21c552fe7db519473c.1207668694.git.jengelh@computergmbh.de> <47FCC2F4.4030901@trash.net> <47FCC7B0.6080205@trash.net> <47FCC9CC.4070307@trash.net> <47FCD318.1030507@trash.net> <47FCD954.5000308@trash.net> <47FCDD9D.7050905@trash.net> <47FCF047.3000202@trash.net> <47FCF3D6.30403@trash.net> <47FCF74A.1030100@trash.net> 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 Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:64683 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752452AbYDJBKw (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Apr 2008 21:10:52 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Wednesday 2008-04-09 19:05, Patrick McHardy wrote: >>> I would have been going for NFPROTO_ now, with a translation >>> table for use for things like the xfrm code. >> We need to keep the INET/INET6 values identical anyway, >> so there no need for translation here. > > The problem is with non-IP,non-IPv6 that passes through xfrm. > That is, if IPX can get xfrmd at all, probably does. It doesn't. We also don't support IPX, this is IMO a non-issue that can be discusses once IPX gains IPSEC support (aka never). >>> Should I change all AF_INET6 to NFPROTO_ in the same run >>> (i.e. mostly xt_[A-Za-z]*.c), or leave it as is? >> If we introduce those values, they should be used everywhere. >> > That would amount to a huge patch (perhaps I split to make it feasible). I have no problems taking a huge sed patch if it makes sense.