From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pablo Neira Ayuso Subject: Re: [PATCH] Reserve nfnetlink subsys ids. Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:26:54 +0200 Message-ID: <4A31142E.50707@netfilter.org> References: <4A310FF4.2070207@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jozsef Kadlecsik , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: Patrick McHardy Return-path: Received: from mail.us.es ([193.147.175.20]:60347 "EHLO mail.us.es" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754032AbZFKO1A (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jun 2009 10:27:00 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4A310FF4.2070207@trash.net> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Patrick McHardy wrote: > Jozsef Kadlecsik wrote: >> Hi Patrick, >> >> A tiny patch to add nfnetlink subsys ids for nftables and ipset. :-) > > Its usually frowned upon to reserve IDs that are not used yet. > We can certainly coordinate so nftables and ipset won't clash > unless we add a different subsystem (we actually did, OSF is > new in nf-next-2.6.git). But is there a reason for adding the > IPSET id at this time instead of waiting until we merge it? I think that the problem is that Jozsef then would need to distribute a patch for nfnetlink to add the new ipset subsystem. This would make easier for him I think. Moreover, there's a compromise to merge it so, why not include it? -- "Los honestos son inadaptados sociales" -- Les Luthiers