From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH] Unique symbol names Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 17:17:39 +0200 Message-ID: <471A1C13.7080807@trash.net> References: <471A1A16.4000005@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Netfilter Developer Mailing List To: Jan Engelhardt Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:33619 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755907AbXJTPSn (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Oct 2007 11:18:43 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Oct 20 2007 17:09, Patrick McHardy wrote: >> Jan Engelhardt wrote: >>> Give the target, match, check, etc. functions unique names. >>> >>> static unsigned int >>> -target(struct sk_buff *skb, >>> - const struct net_device *in, >>> - const struct net_device *out, >>> - unsigned int hooknum, >>> - const struct xt_target *target, >>> - const void *targinfo) >>> +CLUSTERIP_target(struct sk_buff *skb, const struct net_device *in, >>> + const struct net_device *out, unsigned int hooknum, >>> + const struct xt_target *target, const void *targinfo) >>> { >> I don't really like this naming scheme since it uses capital letters >> in the function name. The _target prefix should be enough to distinguish >> matches and targets, no? > > Had not thought about that yet, but yes. > > What about MARK_parse_v0 vs. mark_parse_v0? I did not feel like > elongating that to xt_mark_target_parse_v0 and xt_mark_match_parse_v0. Yeah, thats not so great either. Can't think of a better scheme right now, anyone else got some suggestions?