From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: RFC: net/netfilter reorganization Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 12:09:30 +0200 Message-ID: <48E9E3DA.9020706@trash.net> References: <48E8E984.8090807@trash.net> <20081005.132850.34376215.davem@davemloft.net> <48E938F6.8080108@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jan Engelhardt , David Miller , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: Jozsef Kadlecsik Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:36218 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751724AbYJFKJg (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Oct 2008 06:09:36 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Jozsef Kadlecsik wrote: > On Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Patrick McHardy wrote: > >> Jozsef Kadlecsik wrote: >>> If restructuring is on the way, then it should cover all possible parts. >>> Just my quick thoughts, with suggested module names: >>> mark modules, targets in one module (route): >>> connmark, mark, realm >>> CLASSIFY, CONNMARK, MARK >> CONNMARK and connmark needs to be separated from MARK etc. because >> they depend on the conntrack module. > > They can go into a single file and linked to the "route" module iff > NF_CONNTRACK was selected. > > The same may be applied for other cases as well: it is not needed to force > everything into a huge file. ;-) But then we still have the individual files in the directory. I don't think we should combine files based on config options but by actually moving the code into a new file.