From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luciano Coelho Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] netfilter: xt_condition: add condition target Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 13:14:04 +0300 Message-ID: <1281608044.4440.18.camel@powerslave> References: <1281595021-24310-1-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" , "Ylalehto Janne (Nokia-MS/Tampere)" To: ext Jan Engelhardt Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 12:10 +0200, ext Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Thursday 2010-08-12 08:37, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > > >One thing that came to my mind was whether it would make sense to > >rename this match/target combo to "variable" instead of "condition". > >To me it makes more sense to call it variable than condition, since > >I have changed the value from boolean to u32. On the other hand, it > >could become very confusing because it used to be called condition > >in its xtables-addons days... > > To improve matters, POSIX has something called "condition variables". > So oh well let's just leave it as-is :) :D Okay, let's keep it like this, I guess it would just complicate things more if we change it. -- Cheers, Luca.