From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [NETFILTER]: Introduce nf_inet_address Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:00:29 +0100 Message-ID: <47BD67DD.6020404@trash.net> References: <200801291316.m0TDGivY024953@hera.kernel.org> <1203428949.3223.25.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> <47BAE13D.4060206@trash.net> <1203431447.3223.33.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> <47BAEB6C.1030609@trash.net> <1203594725.15409.48.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Jan Engelhardt , "David S. Miller" , varekova@redhat.com To: David Woodhouse Return-path: Received: from viefep31-int.chello.at ([62.179.121.49]:63497 "EHLO viefep31-int.chello.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753449AbYBUMAx (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Feb 2008 07:00:53 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1203594725.15409.48.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: David Woodhouse wrote: > On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 15:45 +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote: >> That would break iptables compilation, which already includes >> linux/in.h in some files. I guess the best fix for now is to >> include netinet/in.h in busybox and long-term clean this up >> properly. > > Yeah, that makes sense. > > Can we push the change to __u32 (or uint32_t) for 2.6.24? Or is there > something obvious we should be doing in busybox which we aren't? I don't > quite understand why this u_int32_t crap doesn't work at _all_ when it > evidently used to at least in some environments. I already sent it to Dave for 2.6.25 (I assume that what you meant, it was introduced after 2.6.24), its currently sitting in net-2.6 and should hit Linus' tree next time he pulls from Dave.