From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luciano Coelho Subject: Re: [RFC v2] netfilter: xt_condition: add condition target Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:04:15 +0300 Message-ID: <1279623855.16431.4.camel@powerslave> References: <1279619434-11849-1-git-send-email-luciano.coelho@nokia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "kaber@trash.net" , "sameo@linux.intel.com" To: ext Jan Engelhardt Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2010-07-20 at 12:45 +0200, ext Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Tuesday 2010-07-20 11:50, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > struct xt_condition_mtinfo { > >- char name[31]; > >+ char name[XT_CONDITION_MAX_NAME_SIZE]; > > __u8 invert; > > > > /* Used internally by the kernel */ > > void *condvar __attribute__((aligned(8))); > > }; > > > >+struct condition_tg_info { > > In the line of standardized naming, xt_condition_tginfo. Ack. > >+ char name[XT_CONDITION_MAX_NAME_SIZE]; > >+ __u8 enabled; > > No u32 yet? Yes, I decided to make this in different steps. I'll be submitting a new patch with the u32 (and the binary operators support) pretty soon. > >+static struct xt_target condition_tg_reg __read_mostly = { > >+ .name = "CONDITION", > >+ .family = NFPROTO_UNSPEC, > >+ .target = condition_tg_target, > >+ .targetsize = sizeof(struct condition_tg_info), > >+ .checkentry = condition_tg_checkentry, > >+ .destroy = condition_tg_destroy, > >+ .me = THIS_MODULE, > >+}; > >+ > > static struct xt_match condition_mt_reg __read_mostly = { > > .name = "condition", > > .revision = 1, > > (I see that you just sent a diff from the previous submission. That > in itself is ok.) Since xt_condition is a new module to upstream but > already exists in Xtables-addons, it makes sense to use a > .revision number of 2 for the initial Linux kernel submission, > also because the struct contents are different from those currently > in Xt-a. Yes, I made this patch on top of the one you have sent earlier for upstream inclusion. There were some comments from Patrick to that one and, as I said in my email yesterday, I'll rebase the target patches once the original one is included upstream. Do you want me to take a look at Patrick's comments and resubmit the patch you've sent with the changes Patrick asked for? I'll change the revision to 2 as well. > From an overall quick glance, looks good! Thanks for your review and help on this! -- Cheers, Luca.