From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 1 Jan 2001 19:00:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 1 Jan 2001 19:00:12 -0500 Received: from linuxcare.com.au ([203.29.91.49]:13829 "EHLO front.linuxcare.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 1 Jan 2001 19:00:09 -0500 From: Rusty Russell To: Mark James Cc: torvalds@transmeta.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: netfilter enum conflict? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 02 Jan 2001 04:49:32 +1100." <3A50C32C.91350CB@cs.usyd.edu.au> Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 10:29:13 +1100 Message-Id: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In message <3A50C32C.91350CB@cs.usyd.edu.au> you write: > Hi: > > include/linux/netfilter_ipv4.h and include/linux/netfilter_ipv6.h > both define enum nf_ip_hook_priorities. This trips the compiler > if both are included. Should one change to nf_ipv6_hook_priorities? Yes. Only noone has ever included both yet. Rusty. -- Hacking time. --- working-2.4.0-test13-3/include/linux/netfilter_ipv6.h.~1~ Tue May 23 02:50:55 2000 +++ working-2.4.0-test13-3/include/linux/netfilter_ipv6.h Tue Jan 2 10:27:51 2001 @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ #define NF_IP6_NUMHOOKS 5 -enum nf_ip_hook_priorities { +enum nf_ip6_hook_priorities { NF_IP6_PRI_FIRST = INT_MIN, NF_IP6_PRI_CONNTRACK = -200, NF_IP6_PRI_MANGLE = -150, - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/