From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH] Reserve nfnetlink subsys ids. Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:49:51 +0200 Message-ID: <4A31198F.7010004@trash.net> References: <4A310FF4.2070207@trash.net> <4A31142E.50707@netfilter.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jozsef Kadlecsik , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: Pablo Neira Ayuso Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:54242 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751972AbZFKOtu (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jun 2009 10:49:50 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4A31142E.50707@netfilter.org> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > 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. But there's a patch anyways until its merged, no? I mean, it doesn't add any code, so it isn't even necessary to rebuild the kernel. > Moreover, there's a compromise to merge it so, why not include it? As I said, IDs are usually not reserved until something is merged, even if there is agreement to merge it. I guess there has been too much bad experience with reserved IDs and code that never got merged. I have to justify the patches I merge myself and so far I can't.